Council approves rezoning of former Regal Cinemas site for high-density apartments after lengthy public hearing

Newport News City Council voted 7-0 on Aug. 12 to adopt an ordinance rezoning two parcels totaling about 13.02 acres at the former Regal Cinemas site (rezone docket “Charlie Zulu‑2025‑0003”) from C‑1 retail commercial to R‑8 high‑density multifamily dwelling with proffers offered by the applicant.

The vote came after a public hearing during which about 20 residents and stakeholders spoke for and against the proposal. Tim Trant, an attorney with Kaufman & Canoles speaking for the applicant, said developer Brad Waitzer, owner of Platinum Management and Signature Management, has experience in the market and revised the plan after community input. “We made some changes to our plan based on that feedback, particularly in our buffer and the location of our buildings,” Trant told council, noting an existing landscape of roughly 315 trees supplemented by about 100 additional evergreens in the proposed buffer.

The developers and multiple Signature Management residents argued the project would revitalize a declining commercial strip, increase walkability and patronage for nearby businesses, and provide housing choice. “I love living at Commonwealth at York,” said Jana Lieberman, a resident of the nearby Signature community, describing maintenance, social activities and on‑site management as benefits she hopes will be replicated. Business owners and property owners near the Farm Fresh shopping center also urged support, saying the new development could bring foot traffic back to retail spaces.

Opponents — primarily homeowners from adjacent neighborhoods including Ivy Stoneway and Miller’s Pond — raised concerns about traffic, safety, litter, noise and local school capacity. “The traffic congestion on Victory Boulevard is already horrible,” said Karen Clark of Ivy Stoneway, who described increased emergency calls and damage to tires during earlier construction in the corridor. Sharon Hart, also speaking for neighbors, asked council to “consider our quality of life, our health, our safety, and our welfare” when deciding.

Council members acknowledged both positions in deliberations. Councilman Neely cited regional employment growth and housing demand, saying the city needs housing stock to support employers that plan to hire thousands over the next decade. Councilman Long said he had followed the project since the initial community meeting and favored using this opportunity to “take control of this property” rather than leave it to a by‑right commercial use that could produce outcomes the city did not want. Councilman Coleman acknowledged quality‑of‑life concerns but said enforcement and traffic‑calming options exist and indicated support for the project.

The record shows the applicant offered proffers including increased buffer distance and supplemental plantings; Trant also described preliminary discussions about a contractual relationship with the Kiln Creek homeowners association to address ongoing neighborhood maintenance and appearance. Multiple speakers, including developer representatives and nearby merchants, said the development would generate roughly half the daily vehicle trips of the theater at its historic peak, though opponents disputed traffic and school capacity claims.

The council first voted to close the public hearing and then voted on the ordinance; both votes passed unanimously (7–0). No ordinance number beyond the docket label was provided at the hearing.

What happens next: The ordinance adoption authorizes the rezoning and binds the proffers described during the hearing. Council members indicated staff and city engineering will continue to examine traffic‑management and construction‑period mitigation measures; specific permitting and construction timelines were not specified during the meeting.

Speakers quoted in this story spoke during the public hearing and are recorded in the official meeting transcript.