Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies rezoning for VNG compressor station after public opposition
Summary
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.
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.
