Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. I hereby call the September meeting of the Suffolk Planning Commission to order. Please note that this meeting is both televised and recorded for public viewing. I call on Commissioner Johnny Edwards for invocation.

Let us pray. O wise and most gracious Heavenly Father, we take a moment. to say thank you, Lord, for all your many blessings. God, we thank you that we live in a country where we are free not only to speak your name, Lord God, but to worship and adore you. God, we just ask today that you would give us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. God, help us to be reasonable as we come to reason together. Open up our eyes, our hearts, our minds, and our soul as we listen to understand. And God, season our words with salt. Help our discussion, God, be fruitful. and productive for the betterment of all. Lord, we love you and we thank you. In your precious name we do pray. Amen.

Amen. May I ask you all to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United I turn to planning director Kevin wine for roll call.

Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Bauer.

Here.

Commissioner Boselman. Vice chair Creekmore.

Here.

Commissioner Edwards. Commissioner Goodman. Here. Commissioner Powell.

Here.

Commissioner Thornton-Manuel.

Here.

and Chair Hicks here. Madam Chairman, we have a quorum.

Thank you. I see in front of us that we have all received and included in our packets are copies of the minutes from the August meeting. If there are no corrections or objections, those minutes will be approved as presented. Today, everyone, we have the pleasure of honoring one of our, used to be our own, but he's gone now. Brother Mills Thaler, would you please come up with me? Meet me at the mic, sir. It has been a pleasure, Mills. We have had fun. You have taught me some things. You have made me learn on a curve. You have made me learn faster than I had planned on learning because I didn't want to seem like the dummy. So thank you for that. We have enjoyed you. What has it been, 10, 11 years? 11. We did our training together. I think I pretty much know you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Congratulations, ma'am, your wife, for getting your husband back. Every once in a while, I'm going to make him come back because today we had a good lunch and it was because of him. So maybe we can get another one like that. Sir, a resolution has been done in your honor. May I read it for you? Yes, ma'am. Sure. A resolution of appreciation for Mills B. W. STAHLER, JR. WHEREAS MILLS W. STAHLER, JR. WAS APPOINTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND SERVED FROM JULY 2015 UNTIL JUNE 2026 AND WHEREAS WHILE SERVING AS CHAIRMAN HE WAS DEDICATED TO THE BETTERMENT OF THE CITY AND ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHILE ALSO SERVING AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON ORDINANCES. AND WHEREAS THE SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION EXTENDS HIS APPRECIATION TO MILLS W. STAYLOR JR. FOR HIS SERVICE TO HIS COMMUNITY AND WISHES HIM THE BEST WITH ALL OF HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA, THAT THIS RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION BE PRESENTED TO MILLS W. STAYLOR JR. FOR HIS DEDICATED SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE SUFFOLK PLANNING COMMISSION. IT IS DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 AND SIGNED BY YOURS TRULY Thank you. Would you like to speak? Guys, let's stand up.

I was sitting out there and I said, you know, I think I made the wrong turn. I'm in the wrong location. So after 11 years of being on the podium, it's a little different being here. I would like to just say a couple of things. One, Anita, as she said, we started our road together and she outlasted me. I ran out of steam. We did. We started taking the class together. We were seated for our first meeting together. And I'm glad to see that she followed my lead and ended up as the chairman, because everybody needs to do it at least once. I would like to thank the staff, you guys. That job is the easier job. Y'all do the hard work and then we finish up and go forward with it. But you guys ought to be congratulated. I think each and every one of you know just how qualified our staff is. It was an honor and a privilege to serve with each and every one of you. And I haven't missed you because I've been watching you on TV. So thank you very much.

We will now begin our public hearings, of which we have four public hearings after 30 minutes, 10 minutes for the proponent, 15 minutes for the opponent, and then five minutes for rebuttal for the proponent. Our first public hearing is RZN 2025-00002, Town Creek. Secretary Wine, would you read our caption?

Yes, ma'am. Rezoning request RZ in 2025-002, Town Creek, submitted by Bob Arnett, 1427 Holland Road, LLC, applicant on behalf of Stanley Martin Homes, LLC, property owner, in accordance with Sections 31-304 and 31-305 of the Unified Development Ordinance to rezone and amend the official zoning map of the City of Suffolk in order to amend the previously approved proffered conditions for property located at 1407, 1419, and 1427 Holland Road. Zoning map 33, parcels 66, 66C, and 66D. The purpose of this request is to amend previously approved proffers pertaining to the number of residential dwelling units. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Holy Neck Voting Borough, zoned RU, residential urban conditional zoning district. The 2045 comprehensive plan designates this area as part of the central growth area, traditional neighborhood land use type. When you act on this request, you'll be acting on a resolution to present a report and a recommendation to city council relating to rezoning request RZN 2025-002. Before our staff planner, Gonzalo Borges, presents staff's report, I do want to advise that before you all at the dais, you do have a revised proffer statement. Specifically, in amending the proffers as outlined, proffer seven did not align with what was previously stated. contained within the resolution and stated that the roofing shingles had a 35-year warranty. That was incorrect. What was previously approved was roofing shingles with a 25-year warranty. So what is before you all is amended and it would be appropriate to, if a motion to approve is made, to do so with the amended proffered conditions that are presented before you. With that said, Gonzalo Borges will present our STAFF'S REPORT.

THANK YOU, MR. DIRECTOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AS OUR DIRECTOR KEVIN WEIN WAS REFERENCING, THERE ARE SOME CHANGES THAT YOU ARE AWARE NOW THAT YOU WILL SEE THAT IN THE PRESENTATION ARE NOT QUITE THERE YET BECAUSE THE SLIDES WERE DONE LAST FRIDAY AND WE DID NOT UPDATE THEM. USUALLY WE DON'T DO THAT. SO I WANTED YOU TO BEAR THAT IN MIND. This is a request to amend previously approved profit conditions on properties located at 1407, 1419, and 1427 Holland Road, zoning map 33, parcels 66, 66C, and 66D. This amendment is to fundamentally changed the language on three conditions of the proffer statement that was approved in the past. The most important item here is the inclusion of 17 additional units in the Town Creek development, which will increase the number of units from 140 that were previously approved to 157. The 2045 comprehensive plan designates this area as part of the central road area and as a traditional neighborhood land use type. A quick overview of the zoning. The property is currently Zone RU, residential urban. To the north, we have the Holland Road with various commercial uses beyond Zone B2, general commercial, To the south, single-family residential within the Kilby Shores subdivision, which is zone RLM, residential low-medium density. We have the Kilby Shores Apartments, zone RC, residential compact, and the Suffolk Golf Course, zone C, conservation. To the east, we have a commercial building and a railroad right-of-way with a U-Haul mini storage facility that is just beyond these. which are zone B2, general commercial. And to the west, dentist office, zone B2, general commercial, with single-family residential and a church zone, RLM, residential, low, medium, dense, and deep. This is the rezoning exhibit that was prepared by the applicant. Obviously, the property that is subject to this rezoning is the same as the previous rezoning that was approved. What we are seeing here is just an amendment of those proffers. So there's no change in the geography of this process. The subject property, as I mentioned, is on RU. and is currently occupied by some residential uses and mostly by vacant land. The property is about 21.8 acres total. For context, on March 20, 2019, rezoning request RZN 2018-007 conditional Town Creek passed through ordinance number 19-0-0-20. And on that ordinance, it was approved that the proffers that you will see today, it was approved that the properties would be SUBJECT TO SEVEN CONDITIONS. AND THESE RESONING APPROVES CHANGES THOSE THREE OF THOSE SEVEN APPROVED CONDITIONS. This is the exhibit that I picked for you to see. Here we see the original proffer statement. The conditions that will be subject to this amendment are conditions number one, number two, and number seven. Number seven is the one that we were just talking about regarding the number of years that the shingles will have a warranty for. Originally they were approved with 25 years, and the applicant is changing to 30. So what is really changing here? If you look closely, if you put some effort to look, it's hard to look on the right side. But I try to summarize it on the left side of the screen. So fundamentally, four of the original conditions are now being altered. With this application, the applicant is amending the three profit conditions that I will read to you. In condition one, the applicant is amending the school capacity advancement cash contributions to mitigate the impact of four new students generated by the addition of 17 new units. The applicant is therefore amending condition number one by proposing a total cash contribution of $143,602.2 for these four students. And since the original cash contribution on RZN 2018-07 conditional was a total of $688,750 with the additional 17 units and the four students generated at the elementary school level, the total value of this cash contribution will be $832.352. So essentially, you have a value that was already approved. What this amendment does is it basically compensates for the difference of these four new students being added. On condition number two, The applicant is proposing to increase the maximum number of allowed units from 140 to 157 attached and detached single-family dwelling units. So the original proffer from March 2019 had a maximum of 140 units to be developed. The applicant is requesting to increase that by 17 units. Therefore, the four students that come in the conversation in the first condition that was approved. And it is now being amended. Lastly, condition number seven, the applicant is proposing to change what was previously approved as part of the warranty, which was 25 years, is proposing to change to 30 years of warranty. We looked at the documentation that was submitted with it. We received several reports, traffic impact report, fiscal analysis, et cetera. Fundamentally, we see an increase in density. So when we look at the 17 units, we see an increase in density to 7.2 dwelling units. Looking at the UDO, Unified Development Ordinance, for these zoning districts, the maximum is 10.9. So the proposed increase in density is still within the maximum allowed for these zoning districts. Looking at the comprehensive plan, the 2045 comprehensive plan, the traditional neighborhood land use type has a range. That range is 4 to 10 dwelling units per acre. ONCE AGAIN, THE 7.2 UNITS PER ACRE ARE WELL WITHIN THIS RANGE. EVEN THAT IS AT 7.2, THE MAXIMUM BEING 10, IT'S STILL WITHIN THAT. SO THE PROPOSED USE AND DENSITY REMAINS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING ZONING WITH WHAT IS EXPECTED FOR THE COMP LAND AND ABOVE ALL WITH THE SURROUNDING USES, ZONING DESIGNATIONS AND LAND USE TYPES THAT WE HAVE. WITH REGARDS TO SCHOOL MITIGATION, THE TOTAL The applicant is mitigating for the extra four students that are being added. Regarding public water and sanitary sewer, the Department of Public Utilities does not have any objections to the amendment of this application, so that is an okay from their side. At the stormwater level, I wanted to make a note that the Department of Public Works Engineering Division has reviewed the request and has stated that the development will have to finalize an encroachment agreement with Dominion Energy for their easement that crosses the property before plan approval. So the applicant is aware of that situation. As far as we know, and it has been documented, they are on the works to get that easement fixed. So that's one item. Regarding transportation, the applicant submitted a revised traffic impact study. and part of the Institute of Transportation Engineers in their trip generation manual. An additional 17 single-family detached units will generate 4 in and 11 out trips at the morning peak hour and 12 in and 7 out trips at the afternoon peak hour. The full development, so the 157, will generate 198 average daily trips. And with 17 additional units, we will have 15 trips. Out of those 198, 15 trips will be in the morning and 19 will be in the afternoon. So this change in the number of units will generate only 15 and 19 trips at the end of the day. Regarding the intersection capacity analysis, Our traffic department looked at it and what the staff, pardon, what the report, the traffic impact study says is that boats analyzed intersections are expected to operate satisfactory in their build condition, currently build condition. And concerning the proposed entrances, the traffic impact study states that turn lanes are required by city code. However, there are two way left turn lanes along Holland Road, so only the addition of right turn lanes is required. And this improvement has already been proffered as part of the original voluntary proffer statement. The proposed development, as amended, meets the required conditions for adequate public facilities and does not negatively impact the already approved conditions from the original rezoning, nor impacts the orderly planning and development in the vicinity of the subject properties. Therefore, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward rezoning request RZN 2025-002 conditional to City Council with a recommendation of approval subject to the proposed voluntary conditions proffered by the applicant. I will stand by in case you have any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. This public hearing is now open. Who, if anyone, would like to speak on behalf of the proponent? Your name and address, sir.

Good afternoon, Chair Hicks, Vice Chair Crickmore, member of the Planning Commission and staff. My name is Sam Baraki, business address 300 Cedar Lake Drive in Chesapeake, Virginia. And I'm here today on behalf of the applicant to respectfully request your support for RZN 2025-002, the Town Creek Proffer Amendment. The Town Creek development was originally approved, as staff mentioned, in 2019 for a maximum number of units of 140 attached and deattached single-family homes. Today we are requesting an amendment to allow 17 additional single family home, increasing the total number permitted unit from 140 to 157. This is a relatively modest increase to an already approved residential development. And importantly, we are not requesting a change of the zoning from the existing RU zoning classification. With the additional 17 homes, the overall density will increase from approximately 6.4 to 7.2 units per acre. This remains well within the city allowable RU density of 10.9 units per acre. And within the allowable range which is 4 to 10 units per acre recommended by the city 2045 comprehensive plans. The project is located within the city central growth area where infrastructure and transportation corridors are already established. As noted in the staff report, the proposed density remained consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan and compatible with the surrounding development pattern. We have also carefully considered the potential impact of these additional 17 homes. Regarding utility, the city already, city water and sewer are available to the site and city has no objection to the increase. Regarding the transportation, the updated traffic study demonstrate that the additional 17 home will have relatively limited impact on traffic. The study anticipated only 15 additional trips during the morning peak hours and 19 additional trips during the afternoon peak hours. The required right turn lane improvement along Holland Road were already proffered as part of the original development rezoning. We also recognize the potential impact on school capacity, particularly at Kilby short elementary school to address that impact the applicant has voluntarily increase the school cash contribution from six hundred eighty eight thousand seven fifty two eight hundred thirty two thousand three hundred fifty two dollars in addition all applicable requirement for stormwater management utility access landscaping open space road layout and other development standard have been designed WITH THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION PLAN TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROPOSED 17 UNITS, 17 ADDITIONAL UNITS. WE ALSO REQUESTING PART OF THIS REQUEST A CHANGE IN PROPER 7 WITH THE ROOF WARRANTY FROM 25 YEARS TO 30 YEARS. ULTIMATELY THIS REQUEST REPRESENT A MODEST ADJUSTMENT TO AN ALREADY APPROVED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. It provides additional housing within an established growth area, utilizes existing infrastructure, remains well within the city plan density range, and provides mitigation for the impact associated with the additional home. Most importantly, city staff has reviewed the request and recommend to that planning commission forward RZN 2025-002 to city council with recommendation of approval. FOR THIS REASON, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION. THANK YOU, AND I'LL STAND BY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF RZN0002? HEARING NONE, ARE THERE ANY OPPONENTS? Good afternoon, sir. State your name and address.

My name is Blake Baker. I'm the owner of 1401 Holland Road and own and operate RW Baker Funeral Home here in Suffolk. It was already approved one time. I don't see why an additional 17 units is needed on this piece of property if you visited it. 140 units is already a lot of units. Kilby Shores Elementary, the coffers that they're going to provide, Kilby Shores is already over its maximum capacity of students at that school. It doesn't need any additional students, even if it's only for projected students. I just don't understand why you need to go back and change and add more units to a piece of property that's already going to be slammed with 150 or 140 units. It's just not, doesn't make any sense. Why don't they make a nice green space for the kids to play that's only going to be four additional kids at Kilby Shores Elementary and 157 units because we all know there's going to be a whole lot more kids than that. Make a playground, a basketball court, somewhere nice for the kids to play versus 17 more units. It's just not a healthy living space to slam that many more units into an already crowded development. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Any other opposition?

Commission, my name is Dave Leggo. I am an abutting owner to this said piece of property. I came here 10 years ago to voice opposition to the initial 140 units. I gave numerous reasons why. Mr. Baker there has said a few of them. This 2045 plan that asserts that this piece of property is urban central is incorrect. It abuts low to medium residential, which is where I live. You're trying to cram a bunch of townhouses into a place that, as I stated 10 years ago, has one egress exit to Route 58, which is literally a couple of hundred feet away. That was exacerbated more than 20 years ago when they redesigned Turlington Road and turned it into Kilby Shores Drive. So it is already a traffic nightmare, adding LIKELY 300 VEHICLES A DAY COMING AND GOING IS ONLY GOING TO MAKE IT INTOLERABLE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU TRY TO MITIGATE IT IN SOME WAY, 10 YEARS AGO THERE WAS TALK ABOUT ADDING ANOTHER ENTRANCE TO ROUTE 58 FURTHER DOWN PAST THE TRESSEL. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone is thinking about that. There is the already overburdened elementary school that you're talking about adding not just four members, but many, many more young children to a school that has been deemed inadequate But a replacement hasn't even broken ground. We all know that it would take years for that to happen. That's not the major problem. The major problem is the density of this proposal. The traffic will become incredibly bad and I submit that if you lived in the area, you might recognize that fact. So I would ask, you know, how many of you have to go through that area on a daily basis? So I would ask, I would say personally 140 is actually too many. 157 is doubling down on what is already a problem. So I would ask that you deny this petition. Thank you.

Sir, before you leave the podium, can I get your address?

112 Royal Oak Court. Okay, thank you. Kilby.

Is there any other opposition? Hearing none, rebuttal? No? This hearing is closed. Commissioners, I turn to you with questions, comments, or a motion.

All right, yes, Chairman Hicks. I just, you know, just looking at this, this... PROPOSAL HERE, WE ALL KNOW THE ISSUES THAT THE CITY FACED WITH KILBY SHORES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL 17 HOMES IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S ALREADY COMING TO MANNING ROAD WOULD DEFINITELY BE A BURDEN AND AN IMPACT TO KILBY SHORES ELEMENTARY. You know we hear the same things over and over again traffic elementary school But there's also a need for housing So But I'll just weigh in and see if my other commissioners have anything to say before I make a motion Any further comments from the commissioners

I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE'LL APPROVE.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GOODMAN. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? WITH THE AMENDED PROPERTY. THANK YOU. WITH THE AMENDED PROPERTY. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? I SECOND THE MOTION. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GOODMAN SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER EDWARDS. DISCUSSION?

I'D LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS. First off, I want to apologize to everybody for being late in my attire. For some reason, I can't get it in my head that it's on Tuesdays and not Thursdays. So my wife said she will take care of this from now on. So anyway, you got me as I am today. But I had had the opportunity. I missed this discussion here forward. But I had had the opportunity to look at the packet over the weekend. And I did have two or three questions of my own, I'd like to have answered. But I see it was three profiles set out there. One of them was for, again, some extra money to go toward the schools for extra children that may be going in the already overcrowded school. And the other one that I saw, it was two more, one of them was talking about the thickness of the shingles. It will go from a 35-year guaranteed shingle to a 30-year guaranteed shingle. And I was wondering why we were going to downgrade the shingles.

That's a great question, and I can answer that for you. Previously, what was submitted to us by the developer had a typographical error in that proffer in which it cited a 35-year shingle, but what was originally approved and proffered as part of that original rezoning was a 25-year. So they're changing that from 25 to 30, and before you at your seat, you should have a revised proffer that says that.

Okay, so they upgraded the shingle and not downgraded the shingle. That's correct. Okay, good. I was having a problem. I couldn't understand that one to start with. Okay, and then what was the other problem? The number. It was the number of units. That's right, the number of units. So anyway, I see where this was approved in 2019. Okay. They signed off on it. They got it through. And the council was sitting at that time, planning, sitting on that time. Everybody approved it. And I'm kind of of the same thinking as the gentleman that got up here to speak for a little while ago. I've heard it talked about the school over there many times. about how overcrowded it is and how much burden it is, and we've been talking about building a new school, but yet we continue to add burden to that school with every opportunity we get. And I really think the school should be attended to before any more homes are added to any project. How fair is that to them school, for those children, they're living in, they ended back then, all those makeshift little units and you've got the parents as always sitting out there. That is a debacle out there, just sitting there trying to get through there at any point when school was coming in or getting out. I sat through, and I thought about this many times, but I sat through many of the 2045 meetings that were held around this city. And I saw some of you were there. Many of you were there probably. And I heard every citizen that get up there and speaking about, talked about the traffic and how overburdensome it was to try to get from place to place in the city. And I don't want to hurt these gentlemen for trying to make a living. They're trying to do some building, build some houses, and have some affordable housing. But there's got to be a balance struck here. It was already approved in 2019. Why don't we stick to that? Why do we got to put more houses in there and crowd them a little bit more denser? Is it to make more profit? I don't know. I'm not exactly sure what the reason is. I know that they probably have the opportunity. They can do it. It's legally they can do it. But is it in the best interest of our city? Is it the best interest of these children at that school, their school buses, their parents, and everybody living here? And again, I say... We have to have a more balanced approach to where we want to be able to move around in the city. We don't want to see it get crowded. And every time you extend and add more homes and you downsize those lots to put them in there, and I see this all the time, I think that's adding more and more burdensome to everybody here. And they made this deal in 2019. Everybody signed off of it. That's what they ought to go with. And that's my opinion.

Any other comments from commissioners? Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, do you call for the vote?

Commissioners, please vote.

Chairman Hicks, can you restate the motion that we're voting on, please?

The motion is approval of RZN 2025-002 with the seven amended propers.

Madam Chairwoman, that motion fails by a tied vote of four to four.

All right. RZN 2025-002 will go to City Council next month on the 21st of October with a no vote. A no vote. It's not recommended because it was a tie. Say what? The second public hearing is Conditional Use Permit 2025-0018, Harbor Point In-Law Suite. Secretary Wine, will you provide the caption?

Yes, ma'am. Conditional Use Permit Request CUP 2025-018, Harbor Point In-Law Suite, submitted by Timothy Schaffner and Sarah Sergi. applicants and property owners in accordance with sections 31306 and 31406 of the Unified Development Ordinance to grant a conditional use permit to establish a detached accessory dwelling unit on a property located at 6528 Harbor Point Drive. Zoning map 6E, parcel RF, star DD, star 13. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Sleepy Hole Voting Borough, zoned PD plan development zoning district. The 2045 comprehensive plan designates this area as part of the northern growth area, traditional neighborhood land use type. When you act on this request, you'll be acting on a resolution to present a report and recommendation to city council relating to conditional use permit CUP 2025-018. Staff Planner Isabella Reynolds will present staff's report.

Thank you, and good afternoon, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Before you today is a conditional use permit request to establish an accessory dwelling unit, more commonly known as ADUs. The subject property is located at 6528 Harbor Point Drive. The subject property is located within the Northern Grove area and is designated as a traditional neighborhood land use type in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. As some of you may recall, a few months ago, an ordinance text amendment was presented in front of this planning commission. The proposed OTA would permit aid used by right and all single family zoning districts. The proposed OTA 2026-005 will be heard by City Council at their meeting tomorrow, September 16th. If the proposed OTA is approved by City Council, the CUP will no longer require City Council action. However, if City Council votes to defer or deny the proposed OTA, the CUP request will move forward to City Council next month in October. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 0.64 ACRES IN SIZE AND ZONE PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE ZONE PD AND RL RESIDENTIAL LOW ZONING DISTRICT. THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE ZONE PD. THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE ZONE PD AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE ALSO ZONE PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. On the screen is a survey of the subject property which depicts the location of the proposed ADU. The proposed ADU will be located in the rear of the property which abuts a tidal creek off the Nansman River. On the screen is the proposed floor plan of the ADU. The proposed ADU will be approximately 920 square feet in size and will primarily be used by the applicant's parents to reside in. On properties that contain a primary dwelling unit of more than 2,000 square feet, an ADU cannot contain more than 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The size of the primary dwelling is approximately 2,988 square feet. Therefore, the proposed ADU satisfies this criteria as the proposed square footage 920. In conclusion, this conditional use permit request does sufficiently satisfy the criteria set forth from the UDL. The proposed ADU is aligned with the character of the principal structure and of the neighborhood. Also, the proposed ADU is not anticipated to have any adverse impacts to the surrounding community. Therefore, staff recommends approval of CUP 2025-018 with the conditions outlined in the staff report. I'll be standing by for any questions following the public hearing. Thank you.

Thank you, Planner Reynolds. We now open this public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the request? State your name and your address, sir.

Good afternoon, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Brian Lang, 7021 Harborview Boulevard. Today I'm here on behalf of the applicant requesting the ADU Um, just a little bit of history. I can't add a whole lot to that, but, uh, we, we started this before the general assembly voted to approve the 80, 80 U laws. And we were aware of the text amendments that were presented and planning commission passed it for, um, passed on for approval to council, but because it hasn't been acted on. We're just covering our bases, and it was a recommendation from staff, just go ahead and get in front of you guys in case it doesn't happen next month, that we can just keep proceeding. The applicant has already applied for his building permits. He's just been waiting for a little while to get to this point. So I'll stand by for technical questions. Thank you.

Any other persons who'd like to speak in favor of this permit request? Hearing none, anyone in opposition? Anyone in opposition? Rebuttal? All right. Now closed. Commissioners, I now sit here and wait for you to give me your comments, your questions, or your motions.

I understand the urgency of having plans done. Are we supposed to comment or no? Oh, okay. And I don't see this not happening, so I'd hate to hold up him getting started. I could be wrong, but I'd imagine the city council is going to follow with what the rest of the state's doing. So just my two cents. Sorry. Yeah, I'll follow it up with a motion. Just keep it rolling.

To pass, where are we here?

CUP 2025-018 with recommendation for approval.

Motion for approval. I mean, I'm sorry. Motion for approval by Commissioner Bauer. Is there a support? Second. Second by Commissioner Creekmore. Discussion?

chairman Hicks yes I do have a couple questions and some concerns mr. Brian Lane sir could you come back up yes sir good afternoon I had the privilege to go out do a site visit and I'll speak with the applicant I understand that this ad you was going into an HOA yes All right. I had some discussion with him about HOA approval, and he stated that the HOA has not responded to him. Is that correct?

That's what he told me, yes, ma'am.

Okay, okay. So do you... Let me ask our attorney again the same question that I brought up last planning. What is the position of the HOAs and ADUs for approval?

So as far as city council approval, what is in the HOA covenants does not apply to city council. City council can approve things that are not allowed by the covenants. That's for the HOA to enforce.

All right. I just want to make sure that was on record, that even though we approve it, it's still on the, you know, for the HOA to decide this. So I just want you, just make you aware of that. Thank you, ma'am. All right, and then my next question. We talked about the walkway and the access to get to the ADU. If this is the house, will the walkway be on the left side or the right side of the structure?

Left side.

On the left side.

Yes, ma'am.

All right. Well, it's already like a pathway already there? That's correct. Into the gate? Yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. That's all I have. Okay. Thank you.

Other questions? Any other discussion?

Yes. That's fine. I do have a comment about it, and it's a result of a visit out to the applicant's residence. As we walked around, and this is, it was kind of a surprise to me that we're talking about 50 feet RPA. Normally what we have to deal with is a 100 foot RPA. When that, when those units were put out there, which is in the early, what, 2000s, I guess it was, when they were originally built, the developer, I guess, came to council came to the Planning Commission when that development was done, and it went to a 50-foot RPA. If it had been a 100-foot RPA, those houses would never have been able to be put in there because it is so close to the tidal stream that's back there, and it's not a whole lot of room in that backyard. where this is because this is a drop off right behind the fence. But it was a surprise to me that we were dealing with a 50 foot RPA rather than a 100 foot RPA. So that was the only thing that I had a concern about because we normally are looking at a different RPA distance. But those units out there, which are very nice units, or within an area that has been approved. So I don't have a problem with that, but it was a surprise, put it that way.

Further discussion?

Madam Chairman, I just want clarification on the vote by city council. If the city council votes to approve what we already sent to them. The CUP is not necessary in this case.

That would be correct. And it is on City Council's agenda for tomorrow for discussion and consideration. Should they approve the ADU ordinance, that would negate the need for a CUP in this case. So we would return that application back to the applicants.

So... And by the way, saying it, we already voted on this.

Nobody asked me to be practical, sir. Any other comments or discussion on the motion?

Yes, Chairman Hicks. Yes. I know we have a motion on the floor already for approval, but I would like to make a counter or second motion. TO DEFER THIS C.U.P.

TO AFTER CITY COUNCIL VOTE ON TOMORROW. JUST AS A MATTER OF DISCUSSION BEFORE YOU REALLY ARE SERIOUS ABOUT THAT MOTION. THIS HAS COME BEFORE US SOME MONTHS AGO, NOT JUST LAST MONTH. AND IT HAS BEEN DEFERRED BY CITY COUNCIL MORE THAN ONCE, YOU KNOW, REFERRED TO THE NEXT MONTH. SO IF SORT OF LIKE IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING TODAY, WE JUST CONTINUE TO WAIT. WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE CAN GOING TO KICK DOWN THE ROAD. SO IN THE MEANTIME, WE'RE HOLDING THE CITIZEN UP And, you know, if we get it in place, then we can always take it away. But if city council kicks it again tomorrow, then we all into November and then into December. So I don't know if you really, now that you hear what's going on with the deferrals, you still want that motion?

Yeah, I still want that motion. It sounds like the applicant's already held up from the HOA. He don't have approval from the HOA, so... I mean, he's already held up.

I know you're a HOA person, but I believe we need to just go ahead and go forward because it's going to council tomorrow. Let the people deal with HOA. That's their problem. Our problem is to take care of business at hand, and that's whether we want to approve it or not.

Commissioner Goodman, I totally understand what you're saying. So we have something that's going to city council tomorrow that this could be all for nothing. That's my stance.

I'm not necessarily in agreement with Selena, but if it needs a second for us to vote on her position, if you think that's appropriate. I don't know if this is a city attorney question. I just don't want us to keep discussing it too much if we don't need to.

Yeah, we have two motions out there. So a second to a motion just means that another member feels that this question needs to be considered by the body. Okay, so don't second it if you don't. This is up to the members whether or not to second it.

I've got a question now. So if we give them the conditional use permit to go ahead and HOA says, well, no, we're not going to approve this to go here, does that stop it there or do they keep going forward or what?

So the CUP runs with the land. So if city council were to approve the CUP, it would sit in the land record system having a CUP to build an a necessary dwelling unit, but they will not be able to build it without being in violation of their covenants with their HOA, which would be a private action between them and the HOA. So that would stop it also? Well, it would stop construction. It would not stop the existence of the CUP. Right.

But what good would the CUP do?

The HOA may not always be the HOA, President. It may not.

That can always change.

All right, let's move what we got. We got a motion. I got a motion and a second. And then I got a motion without a second. So your motion will have to die if I don't get no second. All right. Hearing no second for that motion, then the first motion is to approve with, we didn't have any conditions, right?

the conditions presented by staff.

Oh, that's right. Approved the CUP by Bauer and Creedmoor. Is that who voted? Make the vote.

Commissioners, please vote. Madam Chairwoman, the motion is approved by 7-0 with one abstention.

All right. This CUP 2025-0018 has been approved and will be sent to City Council for its October 21st meeting. Our third public hearing, in fact, the next two public hearings are OTA, I'm sorry, ordinance text amendments, OTA 2026-007, which is initiated by City of Suffolk's Planning Department. Call on Secretary Warren for the- Yes, ma'am.

Ordinance text amendment OTA 2026-007 initiated by the City of Suffolk for amendments to sections 31301A, 31301H, 31301I, 31306G, 31307A, 31309D, 31413G, 31509C, and 31603E of the Unified Development Ordinance of the City of Suffolk, Virginia. When you act on this request, you will be acting on a resolution to present a report and recommendation to city council relating to ordinance text amendment OTA 2026-007. Our land use planning manager, Caitlin Abbott, will present staff's report.

Hello. Good afternoon, commissioners. Before we get started, what you might find helpful as we walk through these text amendments, you'll see, whether in your PDF packet or if you have it in print, with the proposed ordinance at the very end, you have your Exhibit B, which shows those red line text amendments. So if you want to follow along with me, I'm going to be walking through them in sequential. So some of you might recall last month I had a brief staff report for you all in which I gave an overview of what we're going to be calling housekeeping amendments. Due to the overall size, there's a lot of these, and so we decided to break them up into two applications. This represents part one of that application, and again, To recap what we discussed, housekeeping amendments, when I use that term, are kind of common sense cleanups to the Unified Development Ordinance. It's a regulatory document, and like any regulatory document, that's been enacted for decades. Over time, things get changed. Some things fall out of alignment. You have hiccups that come up in the context of day-to-day administration. THAT AGAIN REQUIRES A PERIODIC REVIEW AND THEN MINOR CORRECTIONS, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH THESE TWO APPLICATIONS IN THIS CASE, THIS PART ONE APPLICATION THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY. SO WITH THIS APPLICATION, OTA 2026-7, THESE ARE THE SECTIONS THAT ARE CONTAINED WITHIN THAT. I'M GOING TO AGAIN GO THROUGH EACH SECTION, TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT'S PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED THERE AND THE WHY BEHIND THAT. SO WE'RE STARTING WITH 31301, WHICH IS THE GENERAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT SECTION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THERE SPECIFICALLY IS AN A3 APPLICATION RESUBMITTALS AND HAVING A FILING TERM. AND WE'RE DOING THIS FOR PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR TWO KINDS OF APPLICATIONS. THE FIRST WOULD BE THOSE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED APPLICATIONS, SITE PLAN, SUBDIVISION, ENGINEERING PLANS, FINAL SUBDIVISION PLATS. AS WRITTEN, WE DON'T HAVE NECESSARILY A RESUBMITTAL DEADLINE. We wouldn't want to necessarily compel applicants when we return a comment letter to, oh, you must respond to us within a certain time. However, what we've seen in practice is with certain applications, we return a comment letter to the consultant, an applicant, and they respond a year later. And then we see these reviews get dragged out over a long time. When an application is initially submitted, it's held to the standards within the EDO when it was submitted. And so this is really designed to ensure that we don't have, again, applications that get dragged out for a long time, and then things get changed in the EDO within that time, and now there's misalignment. And so we're proposing a 180-day sort of resubmittal deadline, so to speak. What we would do is after 180 days, if we've sent out that comment letter and then nothing has been resubmitted, we would reach out and request feedback. Hey, you know you need to resubmit or can you tell us what's happening? We don't receive any response or resubmittal again Then we would close that application out it we they were to resubmit would be a new application We also would have a similar standard for legislative land use items conditional use permits and rezoning This is something we already do in practice as a policy. So this would be codifying that when we have a legislative land use application and we again would send out comments to the applicant. If we don't hear or have a resubmittal or any response within a year, we send out a kind of a friendly notice letter to that applicant asking for status and to resubmit. If we don't get any resubmittal, we close the application. And then if they were to resubmit something, we would take that in as a new application. Again, what that's really intended to do is to make sure that we're getting timely applications that are held to current standards that are moving along. Another really two very small minor corrections in 31301. 3138H3, we're just getting rid of a kind of odd reference to a piece of city code that isn't in there anymore. And so we're replacing that with just a general broad reference that the conduct of public hearings should be done in accordance with city code and state law. Similarly we have in 31 301 I to the process for appealing City Council decisions on legislative land use items That's currently is written not correct. It directs Someone if they wish to appeal the decision of City Council to file that with the director That is not the correct process under state law What happens there is an appeal is filed directly with the circuit court within 30 days of that decision so again just correcting that to be in alignment with state law and We're gonna jump ahead to 31 306 at a section in the you deal about conditional use permits this section talks about What is the CUP? How does that get approved? What's the process for considering it? How do we notice it? What are the various criterion factors that you all and City Council should look at when approving one what constitutes an amendment in this case? We're looking at minor amendments to conditional use permits. So the language is currently written on is very strict. And again, this is particular to minor modifications to a conditional use permit, like what constitutes that. in giving us guidance and regulation on that. Currently as the language written, and I'm going to just read it verbatim because I think it helps to kind of understand what drove our proposed change. Current language states what constitutes a minor amendment to a conditional use permit is shifts in on-site location and changes in size or intensity of less than 5% or a 5% or less increase or decrease in either lot coverage or floor area over what was originally approved. CAN CONSTITUTE A MINOR AMENDMENT THAT CAN BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY. IN PRACTICALITY, WHAT THIS IS CAUSING IS A BIT OF AN ISSUE WITH CONCEPT PLANS. SO AT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STAGE, WHAT WE REQUIRE AND WHAT'S TYPICAL IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN. AGAIN, THAT HAS ENOUGH DELTAILS TO SHOW US WHAT IS THE USE, WHAT ARE THE COMPONENTS OF THE USE, WHERE ARE THOSE GOING TO GO, THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE THAT CITY COUNCIL ULTIMATELY APPROVES. What we do not need at the time of conditional use permit approval is necessarily a fully engineered site plan. From an applicant's perspective, that's a lot of costs that you'd be putting to something that isn't potentially not even going to be approved by city council. However, with that conceptual plan, we have the reports that we typically require unless they are waived for some reasons. These are traffic impact studies, public facilities reports, environmental site assessments, water quality impact studies to inform that conceptual plans and if it's going to even function or work on that site. Again, the language of the modification section is kind of causing this problem where we have a conceptual plan that gets approved as an attachment to the ordinance and say something needs to be shifted on site that doesn't really represent an expansion or addition to the use but has to get moved. That 5% is causing a bit of a problem and causes the site to have to be engineered a little more than what would be typical. So looking at this language and when we are talking about how do we tweak this to be clear but also offer appropriate flexibility. And the language we landed on was, again, very clearly defining what is a minor modification of a CEP. That's a non-material and insignificant shift in on-site location that are determined by the director will not result in substantial alterations of the site design and layout beyond what was originally approved or a 5 percent or less increase in lot coverage or floor area. with the intention of the proposed language is not to kind of throw open the door to you get a concept plan approved and suddenly you're changing things and that need you know that needs to go through if it's truly material changes that has to go back through the major amendment process but again for minor changes like I have to move a walkway giving some flexibility there we also left that you know quantitative qualifier and a five percent for let's say you have a conditional use that's in a building when you go from your concept plan your site plan I'm making the building a little bigger. Again, that has that 5% quantifier for building size, so staff can review that and determine, hey, is this a minor or a major amendment? 31309, this is a section about the Board of Zoning Appeals. For those of you unfamiliar, the Board of Zoning Appeals hears requests for variances from the regulations of the zoning ordinance. They also consider appeals of determinations and things like that. A SECTION IN 31309 REGARDING THE SCOPE OF A VARIANCE THAT'S GRANTED BY THE BZA AND INTERESTINGLY IN THAT LANGUAGE THERE'S ACTUALLY A TIME LIMIT THAT STATES THAT IF A VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE BZA THAT THEN THE APPLICANT HAS TO EXERCISE THAT VARIANCE WITHIN A YEAR OF IT BEING GRANTED. This is kind of atypical for variances. State code's very clear with, for example, conditional use permits. City council can't have time limits on those. State code enabling language for BZAs, less clear that you can necessarily have a time limit on a variance. And so we're proposing to just strike that language completely. Once a applicant receives a variance, then they can exercise that variance unless they go back to the BZA or something happens that removes its vested status. I'm going to jump ahead to 3130 section, very minor change in site plan review. This is really specific to existing telecommunications towers and currently requires a site plan for colocation of an antenna. That doesn't make a lot of sense because truly just simply the colocation of antenna is putting the antenna on the existing tower. Now, we were careful with our language when we wrote this that only the colocation of antenna alone would not require a site plan. If you're doing anything on the ground, I'm pouring a concrete pad. I'm doing a generator. That's still going to need a site plan. But again, just taking this out to make that a little more streamlined. 31413, that's the section that talks about the Historic Conservation Overlay District and all the regulations for the HLC. In the section of exemptions, we added a section that would exempt public signs and artwork installed by a governmental agency from architectural compatibility review within the EHC district. Moving ahead to our subdivision ordinance, 31509 is the section that's all about final plats. And in particular, we're talking about the acceptance of plats. Any and every plat that is submitted to us that would eventually get approved and then get recorded at the circuit court has to have a surveyor's statement on there, what that is, a surveyor certifying that they prepared the plat, they did it in accordance with our code and with state code, and then they date and sign that and provide their license number on the statement. We are adding just a little bit of language that is going to require that that surveyor statement be dated within 180 days of whenever the plat's submitted or resubmitted to us. Again, that's to make sure that we're getting the most up-to-date version of a plat, especially when you have, again, some projects that go on for potentially years, and the review goes on for years. We want to make sure we're having the most current version of that plat prepared by the surveyor. And finally, 31603, our landscaping standards, very minor change in 31603 . We had kind of a short reference to plant material standards, so we're just listing the formal name of the document. 31306 . So state enabling legislation allows localities to require and allow for the replacement of tree canopy on sites. And again, very specific. language and enabling legislation that General Assembly approved and what's in the state code. What that means is that for canopy calculations, they also allow localities to allow certain areas to be exempt from that tree coverage calculation. So dedicated school sites or publicly dedicated lands, Playfields or non wooded rec area wetlands areas. What's not specifically enumerated in that enabling legislation is areas devoid of woody plant material exceeding five feet So we're striking that to just come into more alignment with state code Thank you all for your patience, I know that was quite a bit again it kind of to sum this all up again, these are really clean up amendments to allow the UDO to be a functional document a current and functional piece of regulation and And again, clarifications, reflecting changes in administrative processes, and then just fixing little discrepancies that we see. So in sum, we're proposing that you forward this application to city council as proposed with a recommendation of approval. And I'll be standing by after the public hearing if you have any questions for me. Thank you so much.

All right. This public hearing is now open. OTA 2026-007. Is there anyone to speak in favor of the OTA? Anyone to speak in favor? Anyone to speak in opposition? And can I assume that there is no rebuttal? Public hearing is now closed. I turn to the commissioners for comments, questions, discussions, or motion.

Madam Chairman, I move for approval of OTA 2026.007. Second.

Motion by Commissioner Edwards, supported by Commissioner Creekmore to approve OTA 2026-007. What is your pleasure? Is there discussion on the motion? Hearing none, let's vote. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't hear it. I didn't see it. I'm sorry. Did you?

Oh, I have nothing.

I don't care which one. So on one of the sections here talking about historic conservation overlay districts and it says To me it said that the city had authority to put Different things out there without the approval of the landmark historic landmarks Commission. Am I is that what I'm hearing?

If I understand correctly you're asking if The historic landmarks Commission has the bill. I'm sorry. The city has the ability to approve things in the historic

Yes.

Conservation overlay without the HLC. Yes. Certain minor changes, yes, that's correct.

Is that for minor changes or all changes?

That would be for minor changes, and we're not proposing to amend that.

This would, thank you, I'm sorry. What we're proposing is to exempt signs installed by a government agency from the architectural compatibility review, and that's what we're adding to the section.

You said signs?

Or artwork. Or artwork. Without going to the historic commission.

Is that right? Without going to the historic commission.

Yes. It would be exempt from that.

Well, that sounds like a power grab to me. City gets the power to put whatever they want without the historic commission approving it. Is that what it is?

I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S THAT. THIS IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH OUR SIGN ORDINANCE WHICH WE CURRENTLY EXEMPT THE GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENT RELATED AGENCIES TO INCLUDE FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL FROM THE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS. SO THIS WOULD BRING IT INTO ALIGNMENT WITH THAT.

SO THIS IS GOING TO MAKE IT MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT YOU'RE ALREADY DOING? CORRECT.

If you don't mind me adding a little bit of extra context, we worked on this in conjunction with Jonathan McBride, who is our comprehensive planning manager, and he helps administer the HLC and the HCO relay district. And part of this is in response to, again, some of the things we've seen downtown, like the murals, have those go up. We also, there's talk about signage for parking. This isn't really an attempt to, you know, like we're going to put these big obnoxious signs everywhere. It's for those little things or, again, some of the nice things that they're doing downtown with the artwork.

Well, that's what we have a historic commission for, right? To say this lines with our theme here, what we got going on here in the historical district. Is that right?

In large, the Historic Landmarks Commission has a pretty broad charge, but at its core it's to protect the integrity of the historic resources that we have downtown. To ensure that they're maintained, repaired appropriately, and or new construction buildings are done tastefully in collaboration with what we already have downtown. So, it's a broad answer. Jonathan, you want to add some context? Sure, I can add a little bit.

So, under the current certificate of appropriateness process, there's three different levels. There's one level that doesn't require any review, so if you're doing maintenance and repair. The second level requires administrative review, which is staff reviewing that for appropriateness. And the third level requires HLC review, and that's, you know, those are major changes. The only times that signs go before HLC is when it's required, when they're doing a lighted sign. All the others are administrative reviews, so there really is no need for staff to review something and approve it when we're already reviewing and approving the sign to begin with. So it really is a redundancy for us to review it for a certificate of occupant, or certificate of appropriateness if we're the ones reviewing ourselves, basically. So this is just removing that extra step for having another staff person look at it for appropriateness. when we're already involved in the process of creating the signage and the artwork. So hopefully that clarifies a little bit. So the HLC is actually not reviewing, unless it's a lighted sign, they're not reviewing a sign that's going in the downtown.

The only thing they're reviewing is a lighted sign.

Only lighted signs are the ones that they're reviewing. Administratively reviewing, we're administratively reviewing non-lighted signs. So this category really does fit in just us reviewing ourselves is how that works out. Hopefully that clarifies a little bit the nuance that's there. Thank you.

Any further comments? Any further discussion on the motion?

I got one more comment. Sorry. So I see we're talking about the tree canopy. Let me see where that was. Right here. Landcaping standards. And I guess that is updating basically what we can have in certain areas, the size of the tree or whatnot.

What that's actually doing is removing an exemption so as currently written if you have a site that has Areas devoid of vegetation under five feet you can exempt that from the calculation of what you have to replace We're removing that so you can no longer claim that as an exemption from your calculation of what you're gonna have to replant Okay

I will make one more comment. Somebody needs to do the calculations and plant some trees at the park. It was pretty hot the other day. Thank you.

Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the motion is for approval of OTA 2026-007. Yes, 007. Ready to vote, ladies and gentlemen?

Madam Chairwoman, the motion passes by a vote of eight to zero.

All right, OTA 2026, 2025 dash, whatever the number is, what's the number? 2025-007 has been approved by this body with a recommendation for approval and will go to city council on October 21st. Our next public hearing is OTA 2026-008, initiated again by planning.

Yes, ma'am. Ordinance Text Amendment OTA 2026-008, initiated by the City of Suffolk for amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance of the Code of the City of Suffolk to amend Section 31406C and Appendix A of the Unified Development Ordinance. The purpose of the text amendment is to update and refine the Code of the City of Suffolk Chapter 31, Unified Development Ordinance. When you act on this request, you will be acting on a resolution to present a report in recommendation to City Council relating to Ordinance Text Amendment OTA 2026-008. Our Assistant Director of Planning, Meg Pittenger, will present staff's report.

Thank you, Mr. Wine. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, members of Planning Commission. I will be much more brief than poor Caitlin was. This one hopefully will be a little bit simpler. But this is related to data centers, not allowing them, but actually prohibiting them. So the background is at their June 17, 2026 meeting, City Council approved a motion directing the Planning Commission to draft an amendment to the UDO to prohibit data centers as a use in all zoning districts. So staff has prepared and proposed amendment to section 31-406 use regulations, specifically subsection 31-401C permitted uses table 406-1 permitted uses, principal uses permitted in zoning districts that list data center in the table as a prohibited use in all zoning districts. So in the table and in your package and your staff report, you have the full table because when we amend tables, we have to do that so that Munico doesn't lose anything in the table. But this is an abbreviated portion of the table. And you'll see that uses that are designated with a dash in the table are prohibited uses. So those are not permitted. So within the industrial manufacturing research and wholesale category, we are proposing to add data center as a use. And then you see there are dashes there in all the zoning districts. So it would be a prohibited use in all zoning districts. ALONG WITH AMENDING THE TABLE, WE'RE PROPOSING THE CREATION OF A DEFINITION IN APPENDIX A OF DATA CENTER. IF YOU'RE GOING TO REGULATE THE THING, YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO WE PROPOSED THIS DEFINITION SO THAT WE KNOW, AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN ESTABLISHMENT ENGAGED IN THE STORAGE MANAGEMENT PROCESSING AND OR TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL DATA. which houses computer and or network equipment systems servers appliances and other associated components related to the digital data operations and may include power and cooling infrastructure associated with the facility so that would be the definition proposed to be added to the appendix a In addition, we are proposing amendments to four existing definitions, truck terminal, warehousing, and distribution general, warehouse and freight storage. And I don't know why we have so many warehouse definitions, but we do. warehousing wholesale and distribution limited to clarify that these uses do not include uses that are defined as a data center so that somebody won't come in and say, hey, I got a warehouse that stores stuff, I can store data, thus I can be a data center. So this amendment would clarify that those uses do not include data centers as defined in this definition. With that, I will stand by at the conclusion of public hearing for any questions you may have.

All right, this public hearing is now open for OTA 2026-008. Is there anyone to speak in favor of the OTA? Anyone to speak in opposition? Assuming there is no rebuttal, this public hearing is closed. I'll turn to the commissioners for comments, discussions, or motion.

Yes, Commissioner. Okay. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I see we, that's our definition of data center? Yes. So are we grouping all types of data center into one definition? Yes. All data, all types? Yes. Are there different types that you're aware of? That's what I learned. a couple days ago that there are different types of data centers and they store different types of data and they could be categorized by the megawatts or mega whatever they are called into these data centers. So I think The majority of us are familiar with the large data centers, the hyper ones. But what about a medical facility that have a couple of servers, and they're storing medical records. Are those type of things classified as a data center also?

So you'll see that this table 406 is titled principal uses, right? So if it's a medical center, the principal use would be the medical center. And they may have accessory uses, which are not in this table. They go along with it. They may have a cafeteria. They may have a bookstore. And if they are having some computers to store their own personal data, that would be an accessory use to that principal use. This would be for a principal use that is a data center that is the only thing happening on that property or in that structure that would be defined as a principal use, not an accessory use, which are subordinate to the principal uses.

So no matter the use, no matter the size. So we're saying all data centers, we're prohibiting them for right now.

Yes, we are not proposing to have two different scales of data centers.

So.

As a primary use. As a principal use, yes. As a principal use. Yes, primary principal, same thing, yes. All right. Again, we would not classify that. If there's a principal use, such as, you know, medical center, an office building, something like, there's a data center in this building, my understanding is, not a data center like that, but an accessory use with the computers in it. Okay. We would not classify that as principal use. That's an accessory use to the permitted principal use on that property.

All right, so I just want to clarify. No matter the size and no matter the use, data centers, we've got one blanket definition, and we're saying we're prohibiting all data centers at this moment. As a principal use, yes. As a principal use.

Yes, per our instructions from city council.

Okay, I just wanted to make clarity, just wanted to make sure I understood what we're doing.

Yep, 100%. Anything else?

Other questions, other comments? A motion.

I'll make a motion that we pass this amendment. Motion. That's a motion for approval.

Is there a second motion? Motion by Commissioner Boselman for approval, seconded by Commissioner Edwards. Any discussion?

One quick question. Regarding this vote, and I think it's an understandable vote, is this giving us time to study this? Is this the purpose of this, to give the city time to study the old data center issue as an overall issue, so we won't get bombarded with applications, but it gives the city time to have a overall discussion on how we want to go forward with this.

That's a good question. I can't speak to the purpose on why City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to move in this direction. But City Council was aware and you all know that we've worked on some supplemental use regulations and some pretty stringent standards as it relates to data centers. One of the key concerns that was shared with City Council WAS THE AMBIGUITY RIGHT NOW OF CERTAIN DEFINITIONS WITHIN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE CONCEIVED TO ALLOW FOR DATA CENTERS. BUT AS A MATTER OF RIGHTS, I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE PRIMARY DRIVERS FOR THEM TO DIRECT STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO LOOK INTO THIS ISSUE.

ONE QUICK COMMENT REAL QUICK. I APPRECIATE CITY COUNCIL FOR HITTING THE PAUSE BUTTON. I THINK DATA CENTERS HAVE BECOME one of those hot button issues that people cut their brains off. And we don't have a grown person discussion on something that is the future. And so I appreciate City Council giving us time as a city to come and reason together and see what we want to do. But I will say this, to the City Council and to the citizens, it's time to have a real discussion. And it's time to open our brains that we are living in the 21st century. And that there are going to be data centers. And how we do it, that's up to us. But this pause is for us to have a conversation, not for us just to pause and say, we can't do nothing. That's all I have to say.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Further discussion on the motion.

Just a comment. Looking at it from the standpoint of this commission, if this is approved by us and it goes to city council and it's approved for prohibition of these, do we, in the future, if we have a application for a data center, do we treat that, will we be treating that as an exception to the UDO?

If This tax amendment is on the books and approved by City Council data centers in the city of Suffolk would not be permitted at all so In the event we were to get an application for one and our zoning administrator makes the determination that what they are proposing meets our definition of a data center, it could not be processed. There would be no exception process for them.

So it would be a dead issue?

Correct. Under that scenario that I presented, they could always appeal the decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the zoning administrator's determination that it is a data center and try to make the argument that it's another use. But essentially, it would be a dead issue. Okay.

Yeah. Planning Director Kevin, question. How can we as a group, as a commission, request that when and if we start talking about data centers, that we all start talking about data centers, that there be a meeting of the minds with the city council and the planning commission so that we can hear the same thing at the same time? We've done that a couple of times, and I think that that... would be an appropriate move, but I don't know.

So that type of special meeting would have to be called by city council because it's a special meeting of city council.

Okay, so how do we do it? Do I need to write a letter?

Somebody could, this body could make a motion to send a request to city council for a joint meeting, but that decision would rest with city council.

And I'm not sure that that doesn't need to happen. I don't know if it needs to happen today, but I... I think that needs to happen. I don't know if I'm the only one that thinks that.

No, ma'am, I go on record. No, you're not.

On the motion. Further discussion?

Just one last comment. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE REASON BEHIND WE'RE PASSING THIS OR PROPOSING TO PASS THIS, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS. WE NEED TO GET ON THIS AND TO SAY NO DATA CENTERS BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATA CENTERS. And the faster we get ahead of this, the better we will be as a city. So that's just my stance on this.

Any other discussion?

Real quick. Commissioner, I don't disagree with you. That is not something that we need to kick down the road. But I will say that, again, I do appreciate city council pressing pause on this because it gives us a chance to have a discussion. And again, data centers is not a city, a Suffolk problem. It's a regional problem. And we're going to have to expand this into a regional discussion. And I'll just say this real quick. You gave me the mic and my light green. Suffolk is a leader. And it's time for us. We have the land. It's time for Suffolk to lead and stop waiting on Virginia Beach and Chesapeake to tell us what we're going to do. We have a say and a seat at the table, and we have great minds. And so let's come together. I trust Kevin Wyeth, and I trust our city manager, and I trust our assistant city managers. I think Suffolk could be a leader of this for the whole region, and I hope we take this time to be that. I think I talked.

I did want to add on to that. THAT IT DOES SEEM UNFORTUNATE THAT DECISIONS, BIG DECISIONS ABOUT SUFFOLK ARE MADE AT THE BEQUEST OF AN APPLICANT COMING TO US WITH WHAT THEY WANT DONE IN OUR CITY. IT WOULD BE GREAT TO BE ON FLIP IT SO THAT WE LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR WHAT WE WANT TO SEE IN OUR CITY AND THEN THE APPLICANTS COME, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THE APPLICATIONS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IS USUALLY HOW THINGS WORK, UNFORTUNATELY, BUT if there is a way for us to get ahead of the groundwork and lay the parameters from which we'd like to see applications come, I think it would help not just the data centers, but a lot of the things that we've had to deal with. So, my two cents, thank you.

Madam, I believe that fear is the purpose behind whatever's being proposed. because of all the publicity of the great big data centers. Fear. People have a lot of fear. And whenever people begin to operate in fear, they oftentimes make bad decisions because they're driven by the wrong motive, just like the project that we just dealt with. for 17 more houses in a place already designated. They couldn't do it then because somebody owned that. They found and sold it. And all they wanted was 17. But fear says no. Don't bring it here because of fear. Our city dies when people begin to operate and try to move by fear. Taxes go up. Nobody build nothing because everybody is afraid. They don't realize when they came, somebody didn't want them to be here. But they passed it. So if we're going to have a city that's driven by fear, then after a while, everything will go down.

Further discussion on the motion. Again, the motion is to actually prohibit data centers In the city of Suffolk and the intent is so that we get ahead of it Nothing happens until we all see the picture Any other discussion here and none there's a recommendation for approval let's vote

MADAM CHAIRMAN, THE MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF 8-0.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY COUNCIL'S REQUEST, THIS ORDINANCE TEST AGREEMENT 2026-008 HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THIS BODY AND WILL BE SENT AS A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL TO THEM ON OCTOBER 21ST. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS MIGHT NOT BE A BAD IDEA, To get the motion in to request that the two bodies get together when we do start discussing it or not. What's the recommendation? Should this happen at another meeting or can I throw it in a new business?

Say that that's at the discretion of the commission.

I have a question about that. This is not going to the city council yet. We assume that they're going to support it. But it seems like to me that we ought to wait until after they make the decision and then talk to them.

What I don't want is for the buggy to be going all down the road and then get to the end and then finally somebody calls in the planning commission and asks us. you know, and gives us this big presentation, and we got to think about it right then and act right then. And that's why I want us to get in on the ground floor. Okay, it's prohibited. That's what you needed. That's what you got. But when you start talking about it, please bring us to the table is all I'm trying to say. And I don't want to wait until they are ready at the table and been at the table for two or three months, and then we find out. You know what I'm saying? And I just don't know if... If we're too early or not.

Chair, if I could help with some of that process. According to the UDO, nothing happens without this body having a discussion and a decision. City Council can't make a change to the UDO unless it's a change that's either recommended or not recommended by the commission. So they can send you requests for what they would like to see, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's what the commission recommends. So this commission does have a role in whatever gets passed, assuming that the prohibition goes into place and we don't continue with the you can put a data center in every warehouse. So there will be time in the future to do that. And so then the question is for the staff is whether or not they're ready to have a discussion about what we can and can't do in terms of approvals and setbacks and other things, all the details that go into what will ultimately be the regulation.

Okay, I'm not completely pleased, but I acquiesce and hold off on nothing. I'm just saying it's not over. Is there any old business to come before us? Hearing none, new business. Under new business, I call on Secretary Wein for amendments to the table and uses in the deal.

Yes, ma'am. This afternoon, we'd like to present to you all for the full planning commission's information some proposed amendments that we are working on as it relates to our table of uses and definitions within Appendix A of the Unified Development Ordinance. This is an ongoing effort that we have undertaken specifically. Caitlin has been our primary source of doing this, God bless her. And it's a lot of information. So we feel it would benefit in this venue to present you all with an overview of some of the items that we're looking to amend moving forward. Um, to get some feedback, should you have any? Um, and with that being said, I'll kick it over to Caitlin all of it, who can, um, provide you an overview on some of these changes.

Hello. Good afternoon again. So as Kevin, um, mentioned, this is kind of just a brief staff overview, um, gonna brief this topic and don't panic. This is not something we're going to bring formally to you next month. Um, kind of just serves as sort of an introduction to what we're looking to do. So what we're looking at doing is some amendments to the Table of Uses and Appendix A, the definition. So I just want to kind of talk about what those sections are. And you just saw this with Meg's presentation with data centers. Table of Principal Uses, which is Table 4061 and Section 3146 of the UDO, that lists land uses in the city of Suffolk and the districts in which those uses are either permitted as a matter of right, with a little p, Conditionally permitted with a conditional use permit you'll see a little C or again as we just saw the dash that indicates It's not permitted in that zoning district Appendix A to the UDO is a very, very large list of terms and their definitions, terms that are in the UDO and then definitions. And what's really ideal for any definition section in any ordinance is clear and ambiguous definitions. That's to help avoid unnecessary interpretation, confusion. Again, we want to have terms and then clear definitions for those terms. So you'll see some things in Appendix A. All I know at multifamily is, again, if there's a reference, it helps to define it and have a clear definition. But again, you'll see a lot of different definitions in Appendix A for pretty much every term that probably shows up in the EDO. Again, the UDO was adopted in the late 90s. It's been around for a while. And again, over time, things have been changed in the table. Things have been changed in Appendix A. Things have been changed elsewhere in the UDO. And that kind of resulted in a little bit of misalignment between the table of uses and some of the terms and definitions in Appendix A. So additionally, table of uses in need of a little bit of modernization cleanup in addition to some of the definitions in Appendix A just by virtue of time are a little bit outdated. And so this is kind of a... large effort to remove some of those redundant or outdated definitions, modernize definitions, and clean up the table a little bit. So quick overview. And what we're doing is these are just kind of broad themes that we've seen through this effort, which began earlier this year. We worked really closely with zoning and some other divisions and consulted them as to what should we do, what do we need to look at, for this effort. Housing, clearly defining housing, modernizing definitions, cleaning up. We had some outdated definitions for group and assisted housing and long-term care and some of the medical uses, again, trying to clean those up and make them easy to understand by your average layperson. Agriculture and agritourism, and again, some of you might be aware there's an effort to INCENTIVIZED AGRITOURISM IN THE CITY OF SUFFOLK, BUT WE DO NOT DEFINE AGRITOURISM. WE WANT TO DEFINE AGRITOURISM AND SEE WHERE THAT WILL BE PERMITTED IN THE CITY. CLEANING UP SOME COMMERCIAL USES, EXPANDING SOME BUY RIGHT OPTIONS FOR SOME OF THOSE EVERYDAY SERVICES, ADDING A FEW NEW CATEGORIES, AND THEN ADDING SOME REVIEW FOR SELECT USES, WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN ANOTHER SLIDE. AND A LOT OF STREAM MINING AND TECHNICAL AND LEGAL ALIGNMENT. This use was defined in Appendix A in 1999, and then state code changed, and now the definition doesn't match and doesn't come into line. So again, there's some legal alignment, again, with the sections that are also in the UDO as well. So what we're looking at doing in the table of use is, again, very broad overview. Like childcare, looking at maybe expanding that in some more commercial districts. Some of the agricultural uses, like agribusiness in the A district, making that by right. Wetland banks, allowing those by right. CONDITIONALLY PERMITTING SOME MORE HOUSING TYPES, CHANGING SOME THINGS POTENTIALLY TO A CONDITIONAL USE BY WAY OF EXAMPLE LIKE TOBACCO VAPE STORES, HAVING THOSE NEEDING TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SCRUTINY AND REVIEW THROUGH A CUP. AND THEN AGAIN, I MENTIONED SOME NEW USES, AGAIN, SOME NEW COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE RESIDENTIAL USES. AGAIN, THIS IS IN AN EFFORT TO KIND OF MODERNIZE THE TABLE A LITTLE BIT.

APPENDIX A, AGAIN, THESE ARE JUST NUMBERS.

WE'RE GOING TO DIVE INTO THOSE IN THE FUTURE IN MORE DETAIL. You know, looking at, we added, but looking at adding 19 new definitions, revising about 100 definitions, 107, 47 definitions, like removing or consolidating and kind of breaking that down a little bit. There was a lot of what I'm calling like cross-references. So you'd have a definition that was like townhouse, see dwelling, townhouse. It just, it adds more length to a very long section. So striking some of those out. removing what I call pointers. So we would have something that said, like, lighting standard C section of the UDO. You're not defining the term. You're just saying, go look here for the standards. And then there's a lot of duplicate terms or overlapping terms, about 22 of those. So we're just trying to merge, again, just trying to make the thing a little consolidated. Both of these sections are very large and would not benefit anybody to try to go through either of them in a single public hearing. So what we're proposing is kind of grouping things sort of by use category and then presenting that in a series of staff reports. Again, the purpose of that is to sort of give you all time to digest what we're proposing and what we're changing, ask us questions, recommend any changes. and give time to walk through that process. So what we're looking at grouping is like residential uses in the table and in Appendix A, commercial and institutional uses, industrial and agricultural uses. And then we have some just miscellaneous cleanup in Appendix A. So again, grouped in a series of staff reports, we can have a conversation, discussion, and walk through those prior to formal consideration at public hearing for adoption.

Does anyone have any questions?

Okay, thank you all so much.

Well, staff, Caitlin, we are absolutely not looking forward to those 270 changes.

I will try to put a lot of pictures.

But we do know that someone has to do the grunt work and that we have to approve it. So we don't look forward to seeing you, but we'll see you soon.

Thank you. Take care.

Any questions? HEARING NONE, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN IS UPON US, GUYS, AND I HAVE RECEIVED NODS FROM AND HAVE THEREFORE AND AM THEREFORE RECOMMENDING THE APPOINTMENT OF TOM POWELL AND JOHNNY EDWARDS AS OUR CIP TEAM THIS YEAR. THANK YOU SO MUCH, GUYS. SECRETARY WINE, DO YOU HAVE ANY STATUS REPORTS FOR US?

Yes, I do. At the City Council meeting on August 19th, there were four public hearing items that were presented for their consideration. The first one being the conditional use permit for the proposed dog kennel called Dogs at Lionheart, located on Joshua Lane. That was approved with the recommendations presented by staff and the Planning Commission. Tiny Town Home Child Care, another conditional use permit to allow for a family day home for the keeping of up to 12 children. That was at 1017 Meadows Reach Circle. That was approved with conditions. Zenita's Loving Arms Home Day Care, another conditional use permit for a family day home for the keeping of up to 12 children, approved with conditions. That was at 145 Patriots Walk Drive. And then Lastly, a slate of ordinance text amendments presented to the city council, all in reference to some state code amendments. We wanted to get those sections in order, and those were approved by city council.

All right. And have any preliminary plans been done since we last met?

No. ONE WAS APPROVED SINCE YOU WERE LAST MET, HOWEVER, WE'LL PRESENT THAT TO YOU AT YOUR NEXT MEETING BECAUSE THAT WAS AFTER YOUR PACKET WENT OUT.

ALL RIGHT. HEARING NO OTHER BUSINESS, YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. I'M GOING TO START ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE, COMMISSIONER SELENA. BECAUSE YOU ALWAYS HAVE SOMETHING.

ALL RIGHT. It's been a busy summer, interesting summer. I had the pleasure of attending and passing the 122nd class of the Planning Commission course given by VCU.

You got all this knowledge.

Too much. Thank you, Ms. Katina, for all your support and making sure I was taken care of. Yeah, with all the knowledge, I hope that we can apply some of it. ALL GOOD THINGS, AND I AM IN AGREEANCE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A JOINT SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING THESE DATA CENTERS. WE ALSO NEED TO HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS, INFORMATIONAL SESSIONS. THERE'S A LOT, A LOT OF INFORMATION. WE NEED TO BE INFORMED OF WHAT'S BEFORE US. We cannot hide behind this. And I don't attend that we will hide behind this, that we will move forward with doing right by the citizens and the city. And with my knowledge, and all the things I learned. I would like for us to do an annual report at the end of the year, what we have done as planning commission. I would like to do that. Other cities do it.

I think it would be great that we do that.

To close this out, I don't even know how to say this, but... I don't wanna think that decisions are made up here by fear. I don't think any of us make decisions by fearing what's before us. We know there are traffic issues. We know that there are school issues but we also can slow down some of that growth to catch up with our priorities that are set forth in the CRP. So I don't wanna, you know, think decisions are made by myself as being fear driven. I think that, you know, the citizens have a voice, we have a voice, city council has a voice also. So with that, I say goodnight.

On a lighter note, I really, but I appreciated everything that you said and respect you very much for what you shared. Taste of Suffolk was awesome. I really enjoyed seeing such a variety of people showing up to support a lot of different things going on.

And that was a really great energy that I hope is going to carry into the remainder of the year.

And I hope everybody else felt the same way I did. Felt very encouraged and inspired about the enthusiasm for downtown, our city, working together on things. Sometimes those events, I'm not going to name names or cities, but sometimes those tend to go down so nice. But it was a great place to be. That's all I got. Thanks.

I didn't do anything over the past month. But I would like to recommend, we have, I've had some feedback about the, because I live with one of the folks on the Library Commission, and the reports that we're getting about the new library have just been phenomenal. And if you haven't had an opportunity to visit the new library downtown, please do. We were talking earlier about, you know, the biggest problem we have apparently is a parking. There's not enough parking. Well, that's a great problem to have. But it's a wonderful facility and it's not just about books. It's all kinds of different things in there if you haven't had the opportunity to see it. Thank you.

I wanted to congratulate Les Hall, who has been named Suffolk's first citizen this year. If you don't know Les, he's the owner of All First, has been for 25 years. That event happens every year. A citizen is nominated and elected as a First Citizen who represents our city for business ownership, leadership, community, family, whatever the center is. That event is actually on Thursday night at Suffolk Center, another great place to hang out in Suffolk. So I think tickets are still available to go celebrate him at SuffolkFirstCitizen.com. Do I need an advertising dollar for that? Sure.

JUST ONE COMMENT. I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT FRIDAY IS THE BEGINNING OF ELECTION SEASON FOR REAL. YOU CAN BEGIN VOTING EARLY. EARLIER VOTING STARTS ON FRIDAY AND IT EXTENDS THROUGH THE LAST WEEKEND. THE LAST WEEKEND IS THE WEEKEND THAT ENDS NOVEMBER 1ST. WELL, OCTOBER 31ST. THE LAST TWO WEEKENDS YOU CAN VOTE BOTH SATURDAY AND SUNDAY. And if you have not registered, if you have not registered, you have until October 23rd. Okay, that's the end of my political statement. There being no other business to come before this body, we stand adjourned.