[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6515211,"mediaKeyId","5019173-aa87031828d8bddc9b0d80c7ae2e4dad","parentId",5019173,"title","Chesapeake, Suffolk brief council on plan to formalize long-standing boundary","audioSeconds",285,"startMs",139000,"endMs",424000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5019173-aa87031828d8bddc9b0d80c7ae2e4dad&start=139&end=424","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5019173-aa87031828d8bddc9b0d80c7ae2e4dad/thumbnail_139000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6515211/Chesapeake-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Chesapeake-Suffolk-brief-council-on-plan-to-formalize-long-standing-boundary","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6515211-990342950fb3db8e8ce34b3c73ee9c9c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771089230&Signature=kwx1kMkypEMX~W2-OMU5AflD9PtgcikJG-56jGKHUbfrJNV7yvu-2JBdnZQI4Ou4T62-rCWHq46KfEcuu5P40qJZkKECli1g865Vf~wVb65k4VDWDdjdNeJNLXxCNqelcydAivHF-0RC~1SQqpMTFK7wToZU171hPXyNHpu2q13yDNdEWqt1QTJyJuLG6s~Np~gCL8AT9mgJf6nC9PZtw1Tx9GXN~Xt6JVHwPQaD6oytELCBZZin5kPx8kYyxM6o4qKWd4ImQka6M-QkQgEagc4Qri0V7VyyxTcrfrVThFPJR7LRVCzQJlU1gPo04trj1fs~MEMhXfIncEjUnuKp2Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Chesapeake","date","2025-06-17T00:00:00Z","article","Deputy City Manager Bridal Solis told Chesapeake City Council on June 17 that the city and the City of Suffolk are preparing to formalize a long-standing “working boundary” along the northwestern Pewsville area and described a schedule of surveys, public outreach and legal steps. Solis said the draft line formalizes assessor practice that has, over decades, treated adjacent parcels as belonging to one city or the other.

Solis said the line shown on the jointly prepared map is largely a stair-step boundary reflecting assessor agreements and that about a dozen small, undeveloped, wooded parcels fronting platted but unbuilt “paper streets” would move from Chesapeake to Suffolk for assessment purposes; he said there are no residents, businesses, students or registered voters on those parcels. “So those are streets that are platted but are not, developed as roadways yet,” Solis said.

City attorney Catherine Lindley summarized the legal steps the cities will follow: a cost-sharing agreement the council will consider next Tuesday to fund surveying, legal and outreach expenses; drafting a boundary line agreement with meets-and-bounds descriptions and plats; public hearing notice and property-owner notice; a resolution authorizing the city manager to sign the boundary-line agreement; and, if adopted, recording and filing a petition with the circuit court to make the boundary lawful and part of the land records. “When we move forward and we're ready to present it to council, we do have to advertise it as a public hearing. We have to give notice to affected property owners and then we have to present it to you,” Lindley said.

Solis said public outreach will include an online map tool Suffolk has prepared so residents can enter an address and see the boundary, and joint webpages and FAQ materials for the two cities. He said surveyors will place temporary field markers this summer and that real-estate assessors from each city will reconcile back taxes for any parcels that change assessment jurisdiction. Solis described physical markers — e.g., manhole covers or storm structures — as typical permanent meets-and-bounds references once the line is recorded.

Council members asked about ownership and notification. Solis said owners of the roughly 12 parcels are a mix of private individuals, some owning multiple lots, and that some parcels have unpaid back taxes; he said the city will notify all affected property owners by mail as required by statute and will try to reconcile any owner-supplied title information during survey. Council member Ritter asked specifically “Who owns the 12 properties in question?” and Solis replied they are in private ownership and that owners “absolutely will be contacted.”

Solis and an official from Suffolk, Kevin Hughes, described community open houses planned for September and said the agencies expect surveying activity this summer. Lindley said the cities would rely on the statutory procedure for boundary-line agreements and court recording to finalize the change.

The briefing did not present a final boundary agreement for council action; Solis said the first formal item will be a cost-sharing agreement for the city manager to sign, scheduled as an action item at the next council meeting. The council did not take a vote on the subject at the June 17 meeting.

Ending: Staff said the effort is intended to align legal records with assessor practice while limiting disruption to residents and businesses; council members and staff said they would return with the proposed cost-sharing agreement and outreach materials in the next meeting cycle.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Chesapeake - Regular City Council Meeting - Jun 17, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Deputy City Manager Bridal Solis told Chesapeake City Council on June 17 that the city and the City of Suffolk are preparing to formalize a long-standing “working boundary” along the northwestern Pewsville area and described a schedule of surveys, public outreach and legal steps.","taxTitle","Chesapeake City (Independent City), Virginia","taxId",5806,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6515198,"Residents flood council with opposition to Etheridge Lakes data center; council denies rezoning/continuance",2285,8788000,11073000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5019173-aa87031828d8bddc9b0d80c7ae2e4dad&start=8788&end=11073","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5019173-aa87031828d8bddc9b0d80c7ae2e4dad/thumbnail_8788000.jpg","/articles/6515198/Chesapeake-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Residents-flood-council-with-opposition-to-Etheridge-Lakes-data-center-council-denies-rezoningcontinuance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6515198-a91457ca70ba83ecfeaff6fd74385d2e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771089230&Signature=mRQon0TZtyi1j~1b9-FdPW0uDNlvGDcKk67jjx9LBcVcZwIczggTDP~G5cOt2SriqWVN21B-hD9roL10uS3x5Ob1b6jwqoMrp4k4ji1HGeSaV0YrquEJdx5iVC56SyNVlnAq3Chsr-Tstotw3JYk1stjowyWceEKlW1tqVTzlBe6~zItyXxr6YxUK209CmVOB0JYS8M5aoCsaU8c8C3gr1AUjPZNmuz5j-bf5tTToekVKunPcm~FIPTA~YQ4tyUPw~cBAHg2B1l~jVfK1Ip9CSqWem4Y0J4YWNghoP1f7QpjDvBA-Ay6mBkY3-8t-K0Wt2YdlNbsP9OIvEpFJU1rMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","(Note: This article summarizes a long public hearing and council actions.)

Scores of residents from neighborhoods near Centerville Turnpike and Etheridge Manor filled council chambers on June 17 to oppose a conditional rezoning (PLNREZ2025-002) that would allow a roughly 22.6-acre data center at Etheridge Lakes. The planning commission had recommended denial, and the applicant requested a continuance to Aug. 19; council ultimately voted to deny the rezoning request.

John Padgett, speaking for the applicant, told council he wanted “a little more time to sharpen the data,” expand outreach and refine technical studies before a final council hearing. He said the proposal is “a new type of land use for Chesapeake” and asked for additional time to respond to technical questions and public concerns.

Residents and neighborhood leaders, including multiple speakers from Laurel Ridge Lane, Etheridge Lakes, Grantham Lane and Old Coach Road, urged council to deny both a continuance and the rezoning. Concerns repeated during the public-comment period included: low-frequency noise and vibration from large-scale cooling systems and backup generators and the associated health effects (including cited risks to children, people with sensory disorders and pregnant women); water use and potential water-supply and wastewater impacts; strain on the regional power grid and resulting rate effects; potential declines in property values; and questions about the applicant’s ownership, financing and prior legal matters mentioned by some speakers. Several speakers asked that the city learn lessons from Northern Virginia, where residents and some local governments now say data-center concentrations have caused neighborhood impacts.

Council Member Whitaker announced a disqualification from deliberation because of a professional relationship with an applicant. Council then considered a motion to deny a continuance (moved by Council Member King, seconded by Council Member Ward) and later a motion to deny the rezoning application outright; the motion to deny was adopted by council. The transcript records the council outcome as a denial vote adopted by a seven-member majority; Whitaker had recused himself before the item was considered.

Planning Director McNamara had noted that staff found the rezoning consistent with certain comprehensive-plan objectives and had recommended an approval with proffers for a separate data-center application earlier in the meeting, but for this Etheridge Lakes proposal the planning commission recommended denial and the public comment record was heavily opposed.

Ending: With the council’s denial, the rezoning will not proceed; the applicant may pursue other sites or additional studies and could seek to refile, but the June 17 action closes this application. Council did not adopt any conditions or mitigations for the site at the June 17 meeting; the transcript records that the applicant requested extra time but the council majority declined to continue and instead denied the rezoning.","Dozens of residents filled Chesapeake City Council chambers on June 17 to oppose a proposed 22.6-acre Etheridge Lakes data center; council denied the rezoning application after extended public comment and a motion to deny the application was adopted.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6515203,"Council denies rezoning for VNG compressor station after public opposition",2829,2294000,5123000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5019173-aa87031828d8bddc9b0d80c7ae2e4dad&start=2294&end=5123","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5019173-aa87031828d8bddc9b0d80c7ae2e4dad/thumbnail_2294000.jpg","/articles/6515203/Chesapeake-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Council-denies-rezoning-for-VNG-compressor-station-after-public-opposition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6515203-70d2c331500a2d8e08640a4c69735a76/orig.mp4?Expires=1771089230&Signature=RXb38MCW6iYXF4W99hcNXzuF8m5QRSYldNM6EnEzcFJ5HXvC2Ux8M8LTLlrNrdyBo93ghmBKWGS5NKH6XwyQdHLPGLCczAcooD~AJW9poFYZ8SQkRAwrrkrsAFqF40aYdcfv9t5poPh0BV~dMAShVDAKV-haSwmgYbW0SrcVjBEMB17rZM9bsO80sRKgFLzDx0YrsoUIrJOHgQAo0W-bfvOno8fUcWtjaUws-fD4tL~My7WE~LvRpQMAxDaPOwinaTfrH4UQ1EuGDYUomrn0fSB-r-TWt83m0CUjBd0qADHGXOHJldAyY5MtWHFvi7Z2h-o3B7xlEEHPRXG~RJYq0g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chesapeake City Council on June 17 voted to deny a conditional rezoning application (PLNREZ2024-019) from Virginia Natural Gas (VNG) that would have allowed construction of a replacement compressor station at 2512 South Military Highway.

Planning Director Jimmy McNamara told council staff recommended approval with proffers dated Feb. 27, 2025, and that the applicant had asked to continue action to the July 15 council meeting. The planning staff summary said the new station would replace existing infrastructure and be equipped with advanced safety features and monitoring. Fire Department staff had inspected the site and “offered no objections,” McNamara said, although they provided advisory comments.

Public comment at the council meeting drew several speakers from nearby neighborhoods urging council to deny any continuance and to reject the rezoning. Speakers cited asthma and other health burdens in the area, prior “thick gas smell” near an existing metering station and national examples of pipeline incidents. Dr. George Reid, a speaker who identified himself as living in Portlock, said Chesapeake ranks fifth in the state for air pollution according to the Sierra Club (as cited by the speaker) and asked council to “acknowledge the need for environmental justice” for neighborhoods near the proposed site.

Council then considered a motion from Council Member Whitaker to continue the item to July 15; that motion was seconded but failed on a 4–4 tie. Council Member Newans then moved to deny the rezoning application; the motion was seconded and adopted by a 5–3 vote (denial). The transcript records that the council previously received staff proffers and that the applicant had requested a continuance, but the majority elected to deny the rezoning request.

Ending: The denial leaves the existing infrastructure in place while the applicant may pursue other options. Staff noted the Fire Department had reviewed the proposal and had raised advisory comments but did not object; the transcript does not record additional enforcement or remediation actions tied to the denial. Council did not adopt any conditions or mitigation related to the site at the June 17 meeting.","Chesapeake planning staff recommended approval with proffers and supported a continuance; council twice considered a requested continuance and ultimately voted to deny the conditional rezoning PLNREZ2024-019 for a replacement Virginia Natural Gas compressor station after public comments raised health and safety concerns.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6515207,"Staff previews Greenbrier Area Plan, highlights five transformation districts and implementation tools",1394,916000,2310000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5019173-aa87031828d8bddc9b0d80c7ae2e4dad&start=916&end=2310","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5019173-aa87031828d8bddc9b0d80c7ae2e4dad/thumbnail_916000.jpg","/articles/6515207/Chesapeake-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Staff-previews-Greenbrier-Area-Plan-highlights-five-transformation-districts-and-implementation-tools","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6515207-5cd259b9ce16005c7d2027ba4d60aef6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771089230&Signature=k-WRSJRuwUkmdUecH0LOn5koH3z2qey-UVEpqFuIDoo2KGu7woK65RF~~f057RPYu13BSZeAqjPzMnWAsODBkWspSpqiBtTUDGUISxX5IeLFfT5vRWCymYgVLUNFLnpFW-xPpFSpXJAiJpgmQCC4c~H9kjU6Qp942H6PuFywemdWKyWdQQ5hERQEtIdEiJpggG7Chqw0bHXuMe~~6nFkwUXkYSiHQOlL8M0eVyJN6HmZ6302UOJVYAo58DyEjjwPiM8UMw6YX5IY~-TpjSZybPXmP7q6tW9ptOh3lnV9fYmuE8o01Q~~HLjEqZJ-3pZkSvgaGitog76KL2pw027EQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning Director Jimmy McNamara and consultant leads briefed Chesapeake City Council on June 17 on the draft Greenbrier Area Plan and associated design guidelines, a plan staff described as focused on directing anticipated growth into walkable, mixed-use districts and preserving other parts of the city.

McNamara said the study area (roughly 12 square miles) was assessed with extensive public engagement — “thousands of survey responses” and multiple community meetings — and that staff divided the study area into three broad types (preserve, enhance, transform) and five specific transformation districts: Health Village around Chesapeake Regional medical campus; a Greenbrier Recreation District envisioned for event fields and indoor recreation; the Central Greenbrier District (building on Summit Point success); the Greenbrier Mall regional hub for mixed-use redevelopment; and a Conference District around the Chesapeake Conference Center.

Design guidelines and a circulation plan accompany the draft, McNamara said, with street typologies (vehicular/transit-focused, multimodal, local and main streets), emphasis on multimodal connectivity and on programmed open spaces and linear BMPs. He described specific capital improvement projects, policy changes (zoning, parking, funding tools) and implementation mechanisms that City Council could elect to deploy, including a tax increment financing (TIF) district already in place, a traffic pro rata program, a community development authority (CDA), and a transfer-of-development-rights (TDR) program if enabled by state law revisions.

Council members asked about the TDR program and timing. McNamara said Frederick and Stafford counties in Virginia operate TDR programs and that staff has visited Frederick County to study its approach. He said the city could designate receiving areas (e.g., Greenbrier) and sending areas (e.g., southern Chesapeake) and that a TDR program requires both sending and receiving areas to function. He estimated the plan and related implementation steps could reach adoption and court/legal steps by early next calendar year for some actions, but said the pace of implementation — zoning overlays, CIP projects, TDR adoption — would be determined by council decisions.

McNamara and the consultant emphasized the plan’s objective to strategically accommodate forecast growth in key corridors, to provide infrastructure and housing choices for workers, and to preserve rural and suburban parts of the city by concentrating investment. Staff said the plan is scheduled for council consideration on July 15, when council may choose to adopt the plan document (which would then guide subsequent zoning and policy actions) or to direct further changes.

Ending: McNamara told council the draft plan includes prioritized capital projects, specific policy changes, and design guidelines; adoption would establish the area’s vision and policy framework, after which the council could choose when and how to accelerate implementation through CIP, zoning changes, or TDR. The council did not vote on adoption at the June 17 briefing; the item is scheduled for a July 15 public hearing and decision.

","Planning staff and consultants reviewed the Greenbrier Area Plan draft, describing five ‘transformation’ districts, design guidelines, circulation and open-space improvements, and implementation tools including TIF, traffic pro rata, TDR and community development authorities; plan scheduled for council consideration July 15.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6515193,"At a glance: Chesapeake City Council votes (June 17) — rezonings, uses and text amendments",8131,2943000,11074000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5019173-aa87031828d8bddc9b0d80c7ae2e4dad&start=2943&end=11074","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5019173-aa87031828d8bddc9b0d80c7ae2e4dad/thumbnail_2943000.jpg","/articles/6515193/Chesapeake-City-Independent-City/Virginia/At-a-glance-Chesapeake-City-Council-votes-June-17-rezonings-uses-and-text-amendments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6515193-68fdd0cae10e35f822aefcd46ef76408/orig.mp4?Expires=1771089230&Signature=MkMUJsAq0Wx8mb-V4ESWvqyS33VoEecStH~rZ7JAhFIfbBG19tNtrnHDYOEXl5ZV~AXVikwnEFTgdkI7Nx9talmLJuNzcsGT6TmzFpU4ikgNJCVKKLc9mq24q9G3KJcyU~n97geIwwgcn2tt2VZ3tqWU9f007Qyp7~f4m6~Kea6O-tJxZZYDC~3QYy3b1u~i83oiRop3TZCytrO-p14igCfL6V27~IRozpM-X9TpgQEseTbopfpvJeBVw4hRAg-zf24TiOmTQeZWyo2hmlqCo3dm4kba3odKdD4PGIpD3336Efkas6ChdqDsuzDUNwahBPHKJHcA7wi~3XDL3Rv0wg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","This is a concise summary of formal votes recorded during the Chesapeake City Council meeting on June 17, 2025.

Votes recorded in the meeting transcript (key items):

- Proposed agenda: Motion to approve the proposed agenda adopted 8–0.

- PLNREZ2024-019 (B & G compressor station, Virginia Natural Gas): Motion to continue to July 15 failed on a 4–4 tie; motion to deny the rezoning was adopted by a 5–3 vote (denial).

- PLNREZ2025-002 (Etheridge Lakes Data Center, Emerald Lake Estates 1, Inc.): Applicant requested a continuance to Aug. 19; council declined to continue and subsequently adopted a motion to deny the rezoning (council recorded the denial as adopted by participating members; one council member was recused). The transcript records the denial as adopted by seven participating members.

- PLN Use 2025-006 (Triumph International Ministries; conditional use to operate a church/worship outreach center at 2711 Camus Stella Road): Council approved with stipulations by an 8–0 vote.

- PLN Use 2025-007 (Great Bridge Pumpkin Patch; seasonal outdoor recreational use): Approved with stipulations by an 8–0 vote.

- PLN Use 2025-008 (Euphoric Moments event venue): Approved with stipulations by a 7–1 vote.

- PLN Text 2025-001 (zoning code amendments to permitted/conditional uses in business, industrial, and office/institutional zones; several sections amended): Approved, version dated 04/21/2025, adopted 8–0.

- PLN Text 2025-002 (sign regulations in the Fentress Airfield Overlay District, article 12): Council approved an amendment (reduced nonresidential freestanding sign height to 6 feet) and adopted the text amendment, 8–0.

- PLN Use SW2018-001 (Hampton Roads Integrated Bioenergy Complex #1): Council approved a time-extension request to 07/16/2026, 8–0.

Other actions recorded included routine procedural votes (roll call, minutes/agenda approval). Several items (noted above) were the subject of longer public hearings or briefings.

Ending: The council took a mix of routine approvals and two high-profile denials (the VNG compressor rezoning and Etheridge Lakes data-center rezoning). The denials will stop those applications in their current forms; applicants may pursue alternate options or revised applications.","Summary of formal council actions taken June 17, 2025: agenda approval, several conditional-use permits and zoning text amendments, a time-extension approval, and denials of two contested rezonings (VNG compressor station and Etheridge Lakes data center).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Chesapeake, Suffolk brief council on plan to formalize long-standing boundary

Residents flood council with opposition to Etheridge Lakes data center; council denies rezoning/continuance

Council denies rezoning for VNG compressor station after public opposition

Staff previews Greenbrier Area Plan, highlights five transformation districts and implementation tools

At a glance: Chesapeake City Council votes (June 17) — rezonings, uses and text amendments