City Council - Formal Session

Regular Meeting

Virginia Beach, VA · September 17, 2024

CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH “COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME” CITY COUNCIL MAYOR ROBERT M. "BOBBY" DYER - Mayor ROSEMARY C. WILSON - Vice Mayor District 5 MICHAEL F. BERLUCCHI - District 3 BARBARA M. HENLEY - District 2 DAVID HUTCHESON - District 1 ROBERT W. "WORTH" REMICK - District 6 DR. AMELIA N. ROSS-HAMMOND - District 4 JENNIFER ROUSE - District 10 JOASHUA F. "JOASH" SCHULMAN - District 9 CHRIS TAYLOR - District 8 SABRINA D. WOOTEN - District 7 CITY HALL BUILDING CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-9005 CITY MANAGER – PATRICK A. DUHANEY PHONE: (757)-385-4303 CITY ATTORNEY – MARK D. STILES September 17, 2024 FAX (757) 385-5669 CITY ASSESSOR – SUE CUNNINGHAM CITY AUDITOR – LYNDON S. REMIAS EMAIL: CITYCOUNCIL@vbgov.com CITY CLERK – AMANDA BARNES MAYOR ROBERT M. "BOBBY" DYER PRESIDING I. CITY MANAGER’S BRIEFING -CONFERENCE ROOM- 2:00 PM A. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES STRATEGIC PLAN AND INITIATIVES Chief Jason Stroud II. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION/INITIATIVES/COMMENTS 2:30 PM III. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REVIEW 2:45 PM IV. INFORMAL SESSION - CONFERENCE ROOM- 3:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER B. CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 1. Motion to Recess to Closed Session V. FORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Robert M. "Bobby" Dyer B. INVOCATION Pastor Brent Patrick Lead Pastor, Gateway Church C. MOMENT OF SILENCE D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL F. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION 1. Certify Closed Session G. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS September 3, 2024 2. SPECIAL FORMAL SESSION September 10, 2024 H. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION 1. PROCLAMATION – HUNGER ACTION MONTH AND HUNGER ACTION DAY Christopher Tan, President and CEO – Foodbank of Southeastern Virginia and the Eastern Shore I. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. MANAGEMENT OF CITY PROPERTY 2044 Landstown Centre Way / Sportsplex and Field Hockey Complex 2. ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION (ARP) EASEMENT Installment Purchase Agreement for 152.96 acres at 1368 Pleasant Ridge Road 3. ACQUISITION, BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION Robinson Road Improvements Project, CIP 100347.032 J. FORMAL SESSION AGENDA 1. CONSENT AGENDA K. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTION Resolution to DESIGNATE October 9, 2024 as PANDAS and PANS Awareness Day and to DIRECT the City Manager to illuminate Building 30 and the Virginia Beach Convention Center with green lighting (Requested by Mayor Dyer) Ordinance to ADD City Code Section 21-307 re authorize enforcement of parking regulations in facilities owned by the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority and set a fee for removal of a vehicle immobilization device Ordinance to REPEAL Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater Management and ADOPT and REORDAIN Appendix D, Erosion and Stormwater Management Ordinance to AMEND the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to EXECUTE a Lease for up to five (5) years with the United States Coast Guard re 36 +/- square foot portion of City property located on the Jetty on the North side of Rudee Inlet Ordinance to EXTEND the date for satisfying the conditions re closing a 750 square foot portion of an unimproved lane adjacent to the rear of 200 76th Street Ordinance to ESTABLISH Capital Project #100684, “Seatack Park Improvements,” and to APPROPRIATE $3-Million in Public Facility Revenue Bonds Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $719,970 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the FY2024-25 Fire Department Operating Budget re continued operation of the Virginia Task Force 2 Urban Search and Rescue Team Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $467,000 from the Police Federal & State Seized Assets Special Revenue Fund to the FY2024-25 Police Department Operating Budget re police equipment and training Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $122,600 from the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to the FY2024-25 Police Department Operating Budget re overtime and equipment expenses related to the seatbelt and speed enforcement and AUTHORIZE a 50% in-kind grant match Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $55,450 from the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to the FY2024-25 Police Department Operating Budget re overtime, training, and equipment expenses related to the DUI enforcement and AUTHORIZE a 50% in-kind grant match Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $81,861.55 and an additional $2,455.85 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the FY2024-25 Fire Department Operating Budget re mobilization of Virginia Task Force 2 for wildfires in New Mexico Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $19,538.76 and an additional $586.16 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the FY2024-25 Fire Department Operating Budget re mobilization of Virginia Task Force 2 for a tropical disturbance in Puerto Rico and REIMBURSE $2,000 to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the overpayment re 2020 Puerto Rico Earthquake deployment Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $66,112.23 and an additional $1,983.37 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the FY2024-25 Fire Department Operating Budget re mobilization of Virginia Task Force 2 for Tropical Cyclone Beryl in Texas Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $12,320 and an additional $369.60 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the FY2024-25 Fire Department Operating Budget re mobilization of Virginia Task Force 2 for Tropical Cyclone Beryl in Puerto Rico Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $1,000 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management to the FY2024-25 Emergency Communications and Citizen Services Operating Budget re Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) education program Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $250 from the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority’s Youth Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Project to the FY2024-25 Parks and Recreation Operating Budget re Youth Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Project L. PLANNING MARY LIVELY for a Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Regulations re construct a single-family dwelling for a parcel directly East of 1140 Rollingwood Arch and North of 989 Autum Harvest Drive DISTRICT 1 TIMOTHY PAASCH / OCEAN RESCUE SERVICE INC for a Special Exception For Alternative Compliance re low-speed vehicle storage at 1804 Arctic Avenue DISTRICT 6 GORDON R. CRENSHAW & HANNAH I. CRENSHAW for a Street Closure re approximately 6,327 square feet of an unimproved portion of Windsor Road adjacent to 1217 North Bay Shore Drive DISTRICT 6 (Deferred from August 13, 2024) OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP CENTER, INC. for a Modification of Conditions to a Conditional Use Permit re increase the number of units from 120 to 124 and to expand the building by 16,850 square feet at 4560 Princess Anne Road DISTRICT 1 DOGS REAL ESTATE, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit re residential kennel at 3449 Robinson Road DISTRICT 2 ROBERT JESSUP / ROBERT & JENNIFER A. JESSUP for a Conditional Use Permit re home occupation at 2940 Dante Place DISTRICT 3 DANIELLE GOOD / STAR REAL ESTATE LLC for a Conditional Use Permit re tattoo parlor at 397 Little Neck Road DISTRICT 8 Ordinance to ADOPT a new Official Zoning Map, which shall replace the existing Official Zoning Map, due to a change in the computer mapping format used to store the map data and develop the printed copies. There are no changes to the Zoning District or their existing locations between the current and proposed maps. M. APPOINTMENTS AGRICULTURE ADVISORY COMMISSION BAYFRONT ADVISORY COMMISSION BEACHES AND WATERWAYS ADVISORY COMMISSION CLEAN COMMUNITY COMMISSION COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD EASTERN VIRGINIA INDUSTRIAL FACILITY AUTHORITY GREEN RIBBON COMMITTEE HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ADVISORY GROUP TRANSITION AREA/INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC AREA CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE URBAN AGRICULTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE VIRGINIA BEACH CANNABIS ADVISORY TASK FORCE VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WETLANDS BOARD N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS O. NEW BUSINESS P. ADJOURNMENT ******************************** If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303 *************************** 5.I.1 Packet Pg. 6 Communication: MANAGEMENT OF CITY PROPERTY (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.1 Packet Pg. 7 Communication: MANAGEMENT OF CITY PROPERTY (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.1 Packet Pg. 8 Communication: MANAGEMENT OF CITY PROPERTY (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.1 Packet Pg. 9 Communication: MANAGEMENT OF CITY PROPERTY (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.1 Packet Pg. 10 Communication: MANAGEMENT OF CITY PROPERTY (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.1 Packet Pg. 11 Communication: MANAGEMENT OF CITY PROPERTY (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.1 Packet Pg. 12 Communication: MANAGEMENT OF CITY PROPERTY (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.1 Packet Pg. 13 Communication: MANAGEMENT OF CITY PROPERTY (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.2 Packet Pg. 14 Communication: ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION (ARP) EASEMENT (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.2 Packet Pg. 15 Communication: ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION (ARP) EASEMENT (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.2 Packet Pg. 16 Communication: ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION (ARP) EASEMENT (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.2 Packet Pg. 17 Communication: ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION (ARP) EASEMENT (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.2 Packet Pg. 18 Communication: ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION (ARP) EASEMENT (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.2 Packet Pg. 19 Communication: ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION (ARP) EASEMENT (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.2 Packet Pg. 20 Communication: ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION (ARP) EASEMENT (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.2 Packet Pg. 21 Communication: ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION (ARP) EASEMENT (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.2 Packet Pg. 22 Communication: ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION (ARP) EASEMENT (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.3 Packet Pg. 23 Communication: ACQUISITION, BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.3 Packet Pg. 24 Communication: ACQUISITION, BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.3 Packet Pg. 25 Communication: ACQUISITION, BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.3 Packet Pg. 26 Communication: ACQUISITION, BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.3 Packet Pg. 27 Communication: ACQUISITION, BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.3 Packet Pg. 28 Communication: ACQUISITION, BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.3 Packet Pg. 29 Communication: ACQUISITION, BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.3 Packet Pg. 30 Communication: ACQUISITION, BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.I.3 Packet Pg. 31 Communication: ACQUISITION, BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 5.K.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Resolution Designating October 9, 2024 as PANDAS and PANS Awareness Day and Directing the City Manager to Illuminate 5.K.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Resolution Designating October 9, 2024 as PANDAS and PANS Awareness Day and Directing the City Manager to Illuminate 5.K.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Resolution Designating October 9, 2024 as PANDAS and PANS Awareness Day and Directing the City Manager to Illuminate 5.K.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Resolution Designating October 9, 2024 as PANDAS and PANS Awareness Day and Directing the City Manager to Illuminate 5.K.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Ordinance to Add Section 21-307 to the City Code to Authorize Enforcement of Parking Regulations and Facilities Owned by the 5.K.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Ordinance to Add Section 21-307 to the City Code to Authorize Enforcement of Parking Regulations and Facilities Owned by the 5.K.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 30, Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control and Tree Protection and Appendix D, Stormwater 5.K.a Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Ordinance to Amend the Economic Development Investment Program (“EDIP”) Policy and Procedure (4186 : Ordinance to Amend 5.K.a Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease for up to Five Years with the United States Coast Guard for a 36+- 5.K.a Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease for up to Five Years with the United States Coast Guard for a 36+- 5.K.a Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease for up to Five Years with the United States Coast Guard for a 36+- 5.K.a Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease for up to Five Years with the United States Coast Guard for a 36+- 5.K.a Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease for up to Five Years with the United States Coast Guard for a 36+- 5.K.a Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Ordinance Extending the Date for Satisfying the Conditions in the Matter of Closing a 750 sq. Ft. Portion of an Unimproved Lane 5.K.a Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Ordinance Extending the Date for Satisfying the Conditions in the Matter of Closing a 750 sq. Ft. Portion of an Unimproved Lane 5.K.a Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Ordinance Extending the Date for Satisfying the Conditions in the Matter of Closing a 750 sq. Ft. Portion of an Unimproved Lane 5.K.a Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Ordinance Extending the Date for Satisfying the Conditions in the Matter of Closing a 750 sq. Ft. Portion of an Unimproved Lane 5.K.a Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Ordinance Extending the Date for Satisfying the Conditions in the Matter of Closing a 750 sq. Ft. Portion of an Unimproved Lane 5.K.a Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Ordinance Extending the Date for Satisfying the Conditions in the Matter of Closing a 750 sq. Ft. Portion of an Unimproved Lane 5.K.a Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Ordinance Extending the Date for Satisfying the Conditions in the Matter of Closing a 750 sq. Ft. Portion of an Unimproved Lane 5.K.a Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Ordinance Extending the Date for Satisfying the Conditions in the Matter of Closing a 750 sq. Ft. Portion of an Unimproved Lane 5.K.a Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Ordinance Extending the Date for Satisfying the Conditions in the Matter of Closing a 750 sq. Ft. Portion of an Unimproved Lane 5.K.a Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Ordinance Extending the Date for Satisfying the Conditions in the Matter of Closing a 750 sq. Ft. Portion of an Unimproved Lane 5.K.a Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Ordinance Extending the Date for Satisfying the Conditions in the Matter of Closing a 750 sq. Ft. Portion of an Unimproved Lane 5.K.a Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Ordinance Extending the Date for Satisfying the Conditions in the Matter of Closing a 750 sq. Ft. Portion of an Unimproved Lane 5.K.a Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Ordinance?to Establish Capital Project #100684,?“Seatack Park Improvements,” and to Appropriate $3,000,000 in Public Facility 5.K.a Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Ordinance?to Establish Capital Project #100684,?“Seatack Park Improvements,” and to Appropriate $3,000,000 in Public Facility 5.K.a Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Ordinance?to Establish Capital Project #100684,?“Seatack Park Improvements,” and to Appropriate $3,000,000 in Public Facility 5.K.a Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Ordinance?to Establish Capital Project #100684,?“Seatack Park Improvements,” and to Appropriate $3,000,000 in Public Facility 5.K.a Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds from FEMA for?the?Continued Operation of the Virginia Task Force 2 Urban Search 5.K.a Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds from FEMA for?the?Continued Operation of the Virginia Task Force 2 Urban Search 5.K.a Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Ordinance to?Appropriate?$467,000?in?Fund Balance?from?the Police Federal?&?State Seized Assets Special Revenue Fund 5.K.a Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Ordinance to?Appropriate?$467,000?in?Fund Balance?from?the Police Federal?&?State Seized Assets Special Revenue Fund 5.K.a Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Ordinance to?Appropriate?$467,000?in?Fund Balance?from?the Police Federal?&?State Seized Assets Special Revenue Fund 5.K.a Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate?Grant Funds for Enforcement of?SeatbeltOccupant Protection?Laws?and to Authorize an 5.K.a Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate?Grant Funds for Enforcement of?SeatbeltOccupant Protection?Laws?and to Authorize an 5.K.a Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate?Grant Funds for the Enforcement of?DUI?Laws?and to Authorize an In-Kind Grant Match 5.K.a Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate?Grant Funds for the Enforcement of?DUI?Laws?and to Authorize an In-Kind Grant Match 5.K.a Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Ordinance to?Accept and?Appropriate?Funds?for Costs Related to the New Mexico Wildfires Deployment (4194 : Ordinance 5.K.a Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Ordinance to?Accept and?Appropriate?Funds?for Costs Related to the New Mexico Wildfires Deployment (4194 : Ordinance 5.K.a Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds?for Costs Related to the Puerto Rico Tropical Disturbance Deployment and to 5.K.a Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds?for Costs Related to the Puerto Rico Tropical Disturbance Deployment and to 5.K.a Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds for Costs Related to the Tropical Cyclone Beryl?Texas?Deployment (4193 : 5.K.a Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds for Costs Related to the Tropical Cyclone Beryl?Texas?Deployment (4193 : 5.K.a Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds for Costs Related to the?Tropical Cyclone Beryl Puerto Rico Deployment (4197 : 5.K.a Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds for Costs Related to the?Tropical Cyclone Beryl Puerto Rico Deployment (4197 : 5.K.a Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management for the Public Safety 5.K.a Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management for the Public Safety 5.K.a Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds from the?Virginia?Alcoholic Beverage Control?Authority’s Youth Alcohol and Drug 5.K.a Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds from the?Virginia?Alcoholic Beverage Control?Authority’s Youth Alcohol and Drug MARY LIVELY FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 4.4(B) OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS RE CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING FOR A PARCEL DIRECTLY EAST OF 1140 ROLLINGWOOD ARCH AND NORTH OF 989 AUTUM HARVEST DRIVE DISTRICT 1 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of . APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Manager City Attorney’s Office Packet Pg. 223 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: MARY LIVELY [Applicant & Property Owner] Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Regulations) for the parcel directly east of 1140 Rollingwood Arch & north of 989 Autumn Harvest Drive (GPIN 1466825107). COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 (Hutcheson) MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024  Background: The applicant seeks a Subdivision Variance to deviate from the required 80-foot lot width and 64-foot minimum street width for properties zoned R-10 Residential for property known as Lot 15-A of Bellamy Manor in order to construct a single- family home. Lot 15-A does not have direct access to a public street with 0 feet of lot width and street line frontage. This parcel was platted 1979 along with Lots 11- A through 16-A with a note stating that the additional lots (11-A, 12-A, 13-A, 14-A, 15-A, and 16-A) are not for residential building sites and are subject to becoming part of the original Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15-R, and 16-R of Bellamy Manor, Section B-1. In 1986, Lot 16-A became Lot 1 of the Stratford Green Subdivision and was platted with frontage on Autumn Harvest Drive. Between 1996 to 2002, Lots 12-A, 13-A, and 14-A were resubdivided and consolidated with each respective residential lot. Lots 11 & 11-A have not been consolidated but remains under common ownership. All these lots now maintain street frontage on Rollingwood Arch. The applicant acquired both 15-A and 15-R in 2007 and sold Lot 15-R in 2009— the lot identified for residential development and with street frontage on Rollingwood Arch. The applicant has retained ownership of 15-A and has been seeking to construct a dwelling on the lot. In 2023, at the conclusion of a civil lawsuit, the Circuit Court determined the location of the 10-foot easement for construction of a driveway to grant access to the site from Autumn Harvest Drive but did not grant the applicant the right to build a residential dwelling.  Considerations: The proposed single-family dwelling is consistent with the overall development of the Bellamy Manor and Stratford Green subdivisions. However, the fact remains that this request does not meet the requirements of Section 9.3 of the Zoning Ordinance for a variance to be granted. The owner, of their own volition, sold Lot 15-R in 2009, which was identified on the 1979 plat for Bellamy Manor, Section B- 1 as the buildable lot and which has street line frontage on Rollingwood Arch. By selling to a different owner in 2009 and retaining ownership of Lot 15-A, this Packet Pg. 224 5.L.a Mary Lively Page 2 of 2 Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the resulted in a self-created hardship. As noted in Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Regulations, a personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. The Planning Commission concurred with Staff’s recommendation of denial of this request. Further details pertaining to the application, as well as Staff’s evaluation, are provided in the attached Staff Report. Five (5) Letters of opposition & Twenty-three (23) signatures were received about the request. Two speakers were in opposition stating concerns related to negative impacts to property values and safety of the road with the addition of the proposed driveway on the property.  Recommendation: On August 14, 2024, the Planning Commission passed a motion to recommend denial of this request by a vote of 6 to 3 with 1 abstention. 1. When developed, the residential dwelling shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted concept plan entitled, "Exhibit of Lot 15-A Subdivision of Lots 15 & 16 Belamy Manor B-1 & Parcel B”", dated April 19, 2024, and prepared by Hayden Frye and Associates, Inc. Land Surveyors, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 2. When developed, the residential dwelling shall substantially adhere in appearance, size and materials to the rendering entitled, "Kroll Enterprise Model 900" dated March 6, 2024, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 3. The applicant shall resubdivide the property to remove the subdivision note that prohibited this property from being a residential building site. 4. The property shall not be developed unless a private utility easement(s) is established to provide utility services to this property.  Attachments: Staff Report and Disclosure Statements Location Map Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing Letter of Opposition (5) Petition of Opposition (23 signatures) Recommended Action: Staff recommends Denial. Planning Commission recommends Denial. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: Packet Pg. 225 5.L.a Agenda Item 2 Applicant & Property Owner: Mary Lively Planning Commission Public Hearing: August 14, 2024 Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the City Council District: District 1 (Hutcheson) Project Details Request Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Regulations) Staﬀ Recommendation Denial Staﬀ Planner Hoa N. Dao/Marchelle Coleman Location Parcel directly east of 1140 Rollingwood Arch & north of 989 Autumn Harvest Drive GPIN 1466825107 Site Size 26,797 square feet AICUZ Less than 65 dB DNL Watershed Southern Rivers Existing Land Use and Zoning District Vacant / R-10 Residential Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Districts North Single-family dwellings / R-10 Residential South Autumn Harvest Drive Single-family dwellings / R-10 Residential East Single-family dwellings / R-10 Residential West Single-family dwellings / R-10 Residential Mary Lively Agenda Item 2 page 1 of 11 Packet Pg. 226 5.L.a Background & Summary of Proposal • Lot 15 of Bellamy Manor – Section B-1 was recorded in 1969. A subsequent plat was recorded in 1979 for Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Lots 11A through 16A with a note stating that the additional lots (Lots 11-A, 12-A, 13-A, 14-A, 15-A, and 16- A) are not for residential building sites and are subject to becoming part of the original Lots 11 through 16 of Bellamy Manor – Section B-1. • In 1986, Lot 16-A became Lot 1 of the Stratford Green Subdivision and was platted with frontage on Autumn Harvest Drive. The parcel is currently developed with a single-family dwelling. • Between 1996 to 2002, Lots 12-A, 13-A, and 14-A were resubdivided and consolidated with their respective residential lots (formerly Lots 12, 13, and 14 of Bellamy Manor – Section B-1). While Lot 11-A was not consolidated with Lot 11, both parcels remain under common ownership. • The applicant acquired Lots 15-A and 15-R in 2007. In 2009, the applicant sold Lot 15-R, which is developed with a single-family dwelling, and retained ownership of Lot 15-A. • The applicant seeks to amend the 1979 plat, speciﬁc to the subject parcel, to remove the note that prohibits this parcel from being developed with a residential dwelling. As Lot 15-A has no frontage on a public street, a Subdivision Variance is required to deviate from the required 80 feet lot width and 64 feet street line frontage for property zoned R-10 Residential District. • Dimensional Standards for R-10 Residential District: Required Proposed Lot Required Proposed Lot Required Proposed Street Minimum Lot Width Minimum Lot Area Minimum Width Width (feet) Area (square feet) Street Width (feet) (feet) (square feet) (feet) 80 0* 10,000 26,797 64 0* *Subdivision Variance • In 2023, the Circuit Court granted this property a ten-foot-wide access easement through Lot 1 of Stratford Green Subdivision (formerly Lot 16-A of Bellamy Manor – Section B-1 & Parcel B of Property of Elizabeth R. White) for construction of a residential driveway. The Court Order is explicitly for access to this site and does not grant the applicant the right to build a residential dwelling. The court order established the location for the access easement as mentioned in the deeds for the property. • The adjacent lot, Lot 16-A was replatted with the Stratford Green subdivision which eﬀectively made the note from the initial plat that Lot 16-A was not a residential building lot null and void. The reason a subdivision variance was not required for Lot 16-A was due to the change in alignment for Autumn Harvest Drive from the prior plat which allowed Lot 16-A to meet the dimensional requirements for the district and provided frontage on a public street. Mary Lively Agenda Item 2 page 2 of 11 Packet Pg. 227 5.L.a Zoning History Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the # Request MDC Approved 08/08/2006 1 MDC Approved 08/11/1998 1 MDC Approved 09/12/1995 CUP (Private School) Approved 02/12/1990 Application Types CUP: Conditional Use Permit MDP: Modiﬁcation of Proﬀers SVR: Subdivision Variance REZ: Rezoning NON: Nonconforming Use LUP: Land Use Plan CRZ: Conditional Rezoning STC: Street Closure STR: Short Term Rental MDC: Modiﬁcation of FVR: Floodplain Variance Conditions ALT: Alternative Compliance Evaluation & Recommendation Staﬀ ﬁnds that this request does not meet the requirements of Section 9.3 of the Zoning Ordinance for granting of a variance. Therefore, Staﬀ is recommending denial of this request with the justiﬁcation detailed below. Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Regulations indicates that City Council shall not approve a Subdivision Variance unless speciﬁc ﬁndings can be made. A brief analysis of each required ﬁnding is provided below. No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it ﬁnds that: A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Staﬀ Analysis: A hardship is not the result of strict application of the ordinance as the property was not intended to be developed separately from Lot 15-R when it was platted in 1979. The applicant’s action resulted in hardship when she sold Lot 15-R and retained ownership of Lot 15-A in 2009. B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely aﬀected. Mary Lively Agenda Item 2 page 3 of 11 Packet Pg. 228 5.L.a Staﬀ Analysis: The surrounding area consists of single-family dwellings. The proposed single-family developments would not be detrimental or adversely aﬀect the character of the area as it will continue the established pattern of development. Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the C. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. Staﬀ Analysis: The proposal is not recurring in nature; an amendment to the Ordinance is not required. D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-inﬂicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. Staﬀ Analysis: The hardship is not a result of the physical or topographical character of the property but would be considered a self-inﬂicted hardship resulting from the applicant’s action of selling Lot 15-R and retaining ownership of Lot 15-A. E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. Staﬀ Analysis: The hardship is created by the requirements of the Ordinance. The property is landlocked, thus, not meeting the minimum dimensional standards for property zone R-10 Residential District for Lot Width and Street Line Frontage. The property was allowed to be platted in 1979, not meeting the development standards, since it was not intended for a residential building site. While the proposal to construct a single-family dwelling at this location is consistent with the development pattern in the area, the fact remains that this request does not meet the requirements of Section 9.3 of the Zoning Ordinance for a Variance to be granted. It was the applicant’s action of selling Lot 15-R to a diﬀerent owner in 2009 while retaining ownership of Lot 15-A that resulted in a self-created hardship. Based on the considerations described, Staﬀ recommends denial of this application. Staﬀ has included a list of recommended conditions should the Planning Commission ﬁnd this to be an appropriate use for this site. Recommended Conditions 1. When developed, the residential dwelling shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted concept plan entitled, "Exhibit of Lot 15-A Subdivision of Lots 15 & 16 Belamy Manor B-1 & Parcel B”", dated April 19, 2024, and prepared by Hayden Frye and Associates, Inc. Land Surveyors, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on ﬁle with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 2. When developed, the residential dwelling shall substantially adhere in appearance, size and materials to the rendering entitled, "Kroll Enterprise Model 900" dated March 6, 2024, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on ﬁle with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Mary Lively Agenda Item 2 page 4 of 11 Packet Pg. 229 5.L.a 3. The applicant shall resubdivide the property to remove the subdivision note that prohibited this property from being a residential building site. Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the 4. The property shall not be developed unless a private utility easement(s) is established to provide utility services to this property. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Certiﬁcate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this application are valid. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Oﬃce within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property within the Suburban Area. The primary guiding principle for the Suburban Area is to create and maintain Great Neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are deﬁned as “a cohesive arrangement of properties…within an area most or all of which are residential”. Ultimately the proposed development appears to align with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for this area since the residential character is maintained. Natural & Cultural Resources Impacts The site is located in the Southern Rivers Watershed and there are no known signiﬁcant cultural resources associated with this site. Drainage in the Southern Rivers Watershed is highly impacted by the presence of high ground water, poorly draining soil, and high water surface elevations in downstream receiving waters. Traﬃc Impacts/Transportation Traﬃc Counts Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traﬃc Autumn Harvest Drive No Data Available No Data Available Existing Land Use 1 – 0 ADT Proposed Land Use 2 – 10 ADT 1 as deﬁned by a 2 as deﬁned by a vacant parcel single-family dwelling Mary Lively Agenda Item 2 page 5 of 11 Packet Pg. 230 5.L.a Master Transportation Plan (MTP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Autumn Harvest Drive in the vicinity of this application is considered a two-lane undivided local street. There are no roadway CIP projects slated for this area. Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Public Utility Impacts Water & Sewer The site must connect to City water and sanitary sewer services. A private utility easement will be required for the water service line and sanitary sewer lateral crossing the adjoining lot. Sewer and pump station analysis for pump station #439 is required to determine if future ﬂows can be accommodated. Public Outreach Information Planning Commission • One letter of opposition was received from the adjoining property owner on Lot 1 of Stratford Green Subdivision and a petition with 23 signatures from neighboring property owners requesting to deny the request. • As required by the Zoning Ordinance, the public notice sign(s) was placed on the property on July 15, 2024. • As required by State Code, this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot on Wednesdays, July 31, 2024 and August 7, 2024. • As required by City Code, the adjacent property owners were notiﬁed regarding the request and the date of the Planning Commission public hearing on July 29, 2024. • This Staﬀ report, as well as all reports for this Planning Commission’s meeting, was posted on the Commission’s webpage of virginiabeach.gov/pc on August 8, 2024. City Council • As required by City Code, this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot on Tuesdays, September 3, 2024 and September 10, 2024. • As required by City Code, the adjacent property owners were notiﬁed regarding both the request and the date of the City Council’s public hearing on August 30, 2024. • The City Clerk’s Oﬃce posted the materials associated with the application on the City Council website of https://clerk.virginiabeach.gov/city-council on September 13, 2024. Mary Lively Agenda Item 2 page 6 of 11 Packet Pg. 231 Proposed Site Layout Mary Lively Agenda Item 2 page 7 of 11 Packet Pg. 232 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Proposed Home Rendering Mary Lively Agenda Item 2 page 8 of 11 Packet Pg. 233 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the 1979 Subdivision Plat Mary Lively Agenda Item 2 page 9 of 11 Packet Pg. 234 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Site Photos Mary Lively Agenda Item 2 page 10 of 11 Packet Pg. 235 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the 5.L.a Next Steps • Upon receiving a recommendation from Planning Commission, this request will be scheduled for a City Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Council public hearing. Staﬀ will inform the applicant and/or their representative of the date of the hearing in the upcoming days. • Following City Council’s decision, the applicant will receive a decision letter from Staﬀ. • Once the conditions of approval are in place and/or completed, the applicant must contact the Zoning Division of the Planning Department to obtain veriﬁcation that the conditions have been met. Contact the Zoning Division at 757-385-8074. • If the request requires land disturbance and/or a subdivision of property, please contact the Development Services Center (DSC) to discuss next steps for site plan/plat review. Contact the DSC at 757-385-4621 or the Development Liaison Team at 757-385-5692. • Please note that further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Certiﬁcate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this application are valid. • The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Oﬃce within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Mary Lively Agenda Item 2 page 11 of 11 Packet Pg. 236 Packet Pg. 237 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Marchelle L. Coleman 8/28/2024 8/28/2024 Packet Pg. 238 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Au tum nH arv R10 est R10 Dri ve R10 Co t sw o ld L an din g R10 Site Property Polygons Zoning Building Mary Lively Parcel directly east of 1140 Rollingwood Arch and north of 989 Autumn Harvest Drive μ Feet Packet Pg. 239 0 15 30 60 90 120 150 180 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Virginia Beach Planning Commission June 12, 2024, Public Meeting Agenda Item # 3 Mary Lively RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL - CONSENT Clerk: First up on our regular agenda is agenda Item #3, Mary Lively. It's a subdivision variance request for section 4.4B of the subdivision regulations at the parcel directly east of 1140 Rollingwood Arch and north of 989 Autumn Harvest Drive in District 1. Mr. Alcaraz: You can come forward, the representative, and state your name. Mr. Inman: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Mike Inman, I'm Inman Strickler, here to represent Mary Lively on this application, we have exhibits that we would need to refer to need to pass out to everyone. As you heard this morning, there seems to be a lot to this application when you start to dig into the facts in the background on the property. This has been a litigation, and there's been a lawsuit that was initiated by us because of the fact that the neighbor in lot 16A that you heard about this morning, that was part of the subdivision at hand, was not willing to cooperate with the use of the property as a residence by the applicant here. As a result there was, and the packet that you have contains the order from that, and I want to point out a couple things in that order. I realize I've only got 10 minutes to do all this. I also want to let you know that present is Mary Lively, who is the owner of the property. The gentleman sitting to her right is here in case you have questions about the site plan. That is a part of the packet for the building of the house. My partner, Jeannie Lauer, is sitting there next to Mary, should there be any questions and such. So, looking at the court order that I passed out, I want to point out first, quickly, that the first paragraph states there is a valid express easement in favor of Mary Lively for the property known as 15A, for ingress egress across the property of Hawkins. It was a recognition of Packet Pg. 240 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the an easement that actually had been developed and recorded with various deeds over a period of almost 40 years from 1979 to the time of this suit. The third paragraph says that Mary Lively would be permitted to improve the easement by installing a driveway with an improved and a paved surface no more than 10 feet wide with an apron at Autumn Harvest Drive that may be as wide, but not wider than required by governmental permitting, and paragraph 5 is a requirement to give notice to the neighboring property formerly 16A, now has become, which we'll get into lot one in another subdivision to give notice to that neighbor that they're commencing or that shall be accessing the easement area across lot one on a daily basis for purposes of construction of an approved driveway and residential structure, and thereafter on a daily basis as customarily employed by owners and occupants of residential real property. So that's some important provisions that are set forth in the court order. I also provided to you a series of deeds, which I don't expect to go through in any great detail, but I wanted you to have them because in each case it contains an easement for access for ingress and egress to the property from Autumn Harvest Drive across and through Lot 16A. Now, I'm trying to not get confused, but we'll get there eventually. Lot 16A was part of a six lot subdivision which contained lots that would have initially appeared to be not developable or not buildable, because they didn't have street access. So, it was necessary for at the time of these deeds running from 1979 all the way up to 2001, when Mary Lively obtained a property to make sure there was a express easement carried forward for access to Autumn Harvest Drive from her lot 15A, and that's what those deeds accomplish. There is also, I would like you to note attached, I think it's the last document, there's a plat of Stratford Green. It may not be the last one. There is a plat at the bottom right, says subdivision of Stratford Green. In the upper left, you see Autumn Harvest Drive. It's the very upper left hand corner of the plat where initially Autumn Harvest Drive dead ended into lot 16A. In approximately 2000, or 1986, there was an extension of Autumn Harvest Drive, which, as you can see on there, took it past, they've already shown on here, lot 1, lot 1 on this plat used to be Packet Pg. 241 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the 16A, and then it runs within 10 feet of 15A. That doesn't show up clearly on your plat, the 15A is next to 14A. But that's the Mary Lively property, so the curve of the road did not, for some reason, make it all the way to the property line of 15A and fortunately, that property is benefited by an express easement to get to Autumn Harvest Drive. Then the last thing is at the bottom right corner of a plat that we just gave you, it says it's a replat of lot 16A, which is interesting because what occurred back in 1986 is the owner of lot 16A took it out without any discussion with anyone, took it out of the subdivision and relocated it into a new plat, a subdivision of Bellamy Manor. So, there was a notation on the plat, but the fact that used to be used for residential use only. However, lot 16A was removed and made lot 1, and a house was built on it, and so for that reason when Ms. Lively, purchased well, she first had lot 15R, which was attached to 15A. However, that was, you know, 20 years before. She had every reason to believe that the express easement in her deed that had existed since the inception of 15A, together with the example set by lot 16 being terminated, and made into lot 1 with the construction of a home. This all indicated that at some later point, she would be able to construct a home on her lot 15A. Mr. Alcaraz: Mr. Inman, your time's exceeded, and if I can call you up on a rebuttal maybe you could bring that up, but because your time has exceeded I need to get to the opposition, and then we can call you back up. You had 10 minutes you're past that. Is there any opposition? Clerk: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have three speakers in opposition. Mr. Alcaraz: We have three speakers? Clerk: Yeah, I'm gonna start with Clifford Ramsamudge. Mr. Ramsamooj: Good afternoon Planning Commission. My name is Clifford Ramsamooj. I am the property owner for 989 Autumn Harvest Drive, which is lot 1 Stratford Green, and I am in opposition to the subdivision variance request. Packet Pg. 242 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Also, I'm in complete agreement with the staff recommendation for a denial. They did a very, I feel like they did a very detailed analysis of the request, so I'm in complete agreement with that. I'm in opposition because any development of that lot will result in physical and subsequently monetary damages to the property that I own and that is all. Mr. Alcaraz: Any questions? I have one. So, this document that was just brought to us, there's something on here that I wasn't aware of, but you're familiar with the court order? Mr. Ramsamooj: For the easement? Somewhat. Mr. Alcaraz: But there's a statement in here on page two, paragraph five, that I wasn't aware of. It's kind of completely changed my whole evaluation of this, but it does say in residential structure, in the court order. I did not know this until I just saw it. Mr. Ramsamooj: I wasn't aware of it either. Mr. Plumlee: When did you purchase this lot 16? Mr. Ramsamooj: It was August 27, 2023. Mr. Plumlee: 2023. Last year. Gotcha. Mr. Ramsamooj: So we have recently moved to the property. Mr. Alcaraz: Thank you. Next speaker. Clerk: Brad Wessler, followed by our Webex speaker, Dennis Carlson. Mr. Wessler: My name is Brad Wessler and I'm respectfully asking the members of the Planning Commission to vote against the request to deviate from the Packet Pg. 243 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the required lot width and street line frontage on property zone R10. My wife and I purchased the residence located at 1140 Rollingwood Arch, which is adjacent to the lot in question over 15 years ago. Our property lies directly to the west of the lot in question. Prior to the sale of the property, Ms. Lively made the conscious decision to subdivide the lot that the residence initially set upon since it was built in 1971. When this decision was made, the lot behind our residence, the one in question became landlocked, and according to several city codes, the structure could not lawfully be built on this property. Specifically, the lot does not have the required access to roadway within the required proper street frontage as mandated by current city code. City codes are put in place for specific reasons. While we might not agree with all of them, the codes are established to maintain order, safety, and consistency for the majority of the community. The codes are designed to ensure the government has the best entrance for the entire community in mind. By approving this deviation, the Planning Commission is putting the wishes of just one person, a person who does not even live in this community, above those who do reside here and are directly impacted by this seemingly simple decision. If this request were to be approved, several negative impacts would immediately take place. First, land would be forcibly taken from the current residence of 989 who just spoke and stated he did not want to give up a portion of his front yard to have the required driveway built to that lot. Four mature trees would have to be removed and substantial construction to remove a sewer line would have to take place. The land that served as part of our lot, 1140 Rollingwood Arch, my backyard since the residence was built in 1971 until it was subdivided in 2009, would basically have a house crammed onto it. It barely fits to the lot dimensions. Finally, it is important to note that 13 residents are also directed by this decision. To the north of the lot in question, 13 families have similar lots and enjoy property as it was originally designed. These families would also lose the easement access they currently have to the rear of the properties. When I try to explain to you how this decision would negatively impact our community, the analogy that keeps coming to mind Packet Pg. 244 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the is that is putting a square peg in a round hole. Yes, you can cut it, force it, and jam it in, and eventually it'll fit. But is that really the best option? For over 50 years, city codes have designated the line in question as unbuildable, despite the changes. I'm respectfully asking each of you to vote no on this request, and allow me, my neighbor directly behind me, the residents of 989 Autumn Harvest Drive, to keep our lots and land as it was originally intended to be used. While the lines on the screen may not seem much to each of you, they represent the quality of life each of us hopes to enjoy for at least another 50 years. I'd also like to point out that Ms. Hawkins fought this, who is a resident of 16A, for over 15 years until her death in litigation. That is why things have suddenly changed drastically. I'd also like to add that I have petitioned, or where I gathered 23 signatures, which may not seem like much, but it's a very small neighborhood, that are also against this approval being approved. Thank you for your time. Mr. Alcaraz: All right, thank you. Any questions? Go ahead, Mr. Plumlee. Mr. Plumlee: Mr. Wessler, were you involved in the litigation at all directly? Mr. Wessler: Not directly, no sir. I'm very aware of what was going on. Mr. Plumlee: You're aware of it, but you didn't participate in it. You said, I'm sorry, I forgot her name, the owner of 16 A. Mr. Wessler: Yes, Ms. Hawkins. Mr. Plumlee: Ms. Hawkins. Was she the owner at the time that, that 16-1 had been subdivided away? Mr. Wessler: Correct. Mr. Plumlee: She was, and so she got the benefit of that subdivision, isn't that fair? Packet Pg. 245 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Mr. Wessler: I'm not sure if I understand that question. Mr. Plumlee: So, she held on to 16A, and then had 16-1, that backside of her lot, I don't know what else to call it, that had been taken and then put in this separate subdivision. Is that fair? Mr. Wessler: She purchased a lot in the back of the property. Mr. Plumlee: Okay. She was the prior owner before the gentleman that just came up. Is that correct? Mr. Wessler: Yes, sir. Mr. Plumlee: Okay. Now I understand. Mr. Wessler: She built the home. Mr. Plumlee: At the time of that subdivision in 1986, were you an owner in that subdivision, that community? Mr. Wessler: I was not. Mr. Plumlee: You were not. Okay. All right. Mr. Alcaraz: All right, any other questions? No, thank you. We have the Webex now. Clerk: Calling our last speaker via Webex, Dennis Carlson. Mr. Carlson: I am a resident on Autumn Harvest Drive, and my only knowledge of this is having looked at the document that was provided to the planning commission, the proposed plat, it seems pretty obvious to me that if this were to be approved, the variance that is, that would really affect the, not just the quality of our life and access to. I don't know if you, if you heard Packet Pg. 246 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the me. Yeah, this is a comment in opposition, and it looks like it would violate the property rights of the owner of 989 in terms of building a – Mr. Alcaraz: Just state your name. Ms. Lauer: My name is Jeannie Lauer. I'm an attorney with Inman and Strickler. I represented Ms. Lively in the litigation related to the easement which is why I've been asked to rebut. With all due respect to Mr. Wessler, who purchased 15R, which is the house, which is the lot with the house, and Ms. Lively owns 15A, which is behind it. She owned both of them. She sold to Mr. Wessler. Mr. Wessler was aware of the fact and required a release that she would never seek to go through his property to get access to a road. He was intimately familiar with the fact that there was an express easement and required Ms. Lively to enter into. He wasn't interested in purchasing 15A. So, he wanted to make sure that she only tried to use the easement that she already had through 16 because she had already stated her intention to build a house or to try and build a house, which is what she's been trying to do since the very beginning. The last document that Mr. Inman tendered up to you in his packet was the city simply required that there be a replating of 16 where the house was built, that Ms. Hawkins lived in, that the first gentleman now lives in, and all it said was, this is a replat prepared for review and approval of a building site, and with that all of the negative language about not being a building site was gone. It was simply approved by the city. No variance was necessary. Built a house within a few months. Mr. Plumlee: This 1986 plat was signed by the planning director? Ms. Lauer: That's correct. Mr. Plumlee: And the Director of Public Works. Ms. Lauer: That's correct. And that was all that was required. No consent on behalf of 15, 14, 13, 12, and 11, any of the other lots. The original appendage, Packet Pg. 247 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the according to Mr. Wasserman, and Mr. Compton, and Mr. Thompson, who were the purchasers, and re-subdivided the property from parcel B from Ms. White down to the six parcels, was that they appended the note simply to indicate that they weren't going to build on it, and their plan was perhaps to make them part of, but if you see the succession, there was never a deficit in the property in that it couldn't be used as a buildable site, it was nothing required by the city, it was a note voluntarily placed by the individuals who purchased the property, and as you can see, was readily dispensed with by 16. As far as Mr. Ramsamooj, who owns 16 now and is talking about his trees, no matter what this planning commission does, Ms. Lively has a right to build her driveway through. She's going to take down those trees and she's going to put that driveway in. There's no doubt about the fact that she has the right to do that. The only issue is, does she build a residential structure? That was always anticipated in the litigation. Kevin Kemp the zoning administrator here, testified that that would not be a problem so long as it otherwise met the requirements. This is a lot that is twice the size required. It's 27, 000 feet, 10,000 is all that's required. So it is not squeezing anything in, and Mr. Ramsamooj, purchased the property with full knowledge of this order. It was required to be recorded. It was recorded June 14, 2023. He didn't purchase the property until a few months later. He had intimate knowledge. If he was misled by the sellers as to any aspect of that, he had a clear order that told him everything that you've just read about a driveway, a residential structure, removal of trees, he bought with full knowledge of what was going to happen with that property, and we made every effort to have the property, the driveway moved down. It would have been in the middle of the property rather than farther down the driveway placement if Ms. Lively hadn't otherwise agreed, but that's what we were always striving for was to cause the least impact, but the bottom line is she has had these rights. It was not self-inflicted. She had these rights. It was never a landlocked parcel. It always had an easement from the moment of its creation. That's all the court found. It didn't create a new easement. It merely observed that there already existed one, that it was not a landlocked Packet Pg. 248 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the parcel, that it was intended for vehicular traffic, which under the city code is actually a street because anything which is provided for city traffic, public or private, is a street. So, she has a street and the analysis done by staff doesn't account for that. Mr. Plumlee: So that would afford her the right along that public street to place any type of easement necessary for utilities for access to the lot. Is that also true? Ms. Lauer: That is also true, but the order, if you look at it, also calls for the placement of utilities. It says that she has the right to relocate, move, or place, as in new placement, of utilities in the driveway easement to the extent that that's necessary. We made sure that that was something that would be available. So, we've covered all the bases in the litigation and this was a five year process. Don't think that Judge Mahan overlooked any aspect or detail. If any of you know him, you know, every I was dotted, every T was crossed. Everything which was necessary to enable Ms. Lively to use her property that she has owned for a long period of time and exercise all of her rights pursuant to the terms of the city code, we're followed. We did everything right. The judge said we had a right to move forward with it, and more importantly, without even a glance at Ms. Lively, you let 16A, Ms. Hawkins, build her house when it had a building lot restriction. All she had to do was file a new plat. Didn't cost her nearly as much. I would simply ask that you continue to afford her the same rights that were apparently casually given to someone who had never lived in the neighborhood before, and Ms. Lively would very much like to be able to live there again. Mr. Alcaraz: With the opposition, is there any other things you need to say or rebut to them? You may, it's just a chance. Ms. Lauer: I believe that it's very clear if there are any questions about the order, the intent, the long history of this case, or the use of the property, I would welcome them, but we're just asking for everyone to be fair. Packet Pg. 249 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Mr. Alcaraz: Any questions Mr. Plumlee? Mr. Plumlee: Just if you could cover your thoughts because, in my view, this has been about the variance request. Okay? So let's just move aside the ownership rights and talk about the factors of the variance. If you could address the comments of staff with regards to those factors, and your rebuttal to those, I think that, that would be important to understand. Ms. Lauer: Well, I think first of all, it's important to recognize this is not a landlocked property because it always possessed a street, under the city code definition, and easement from its inception. It's on the original subdivision plot, it's in the deeds. So, it already exists. It's not landlocked and that's error. The other issue as to the analysis has to do with whether or not, the city code also says that you just have to have access to a public street, which she does. That's under the provision. As far as the self-inflicted harm, that's not true. Self-inflicted when the Supreme Court talks about that and analyses that statute has to do with whether or not you have already done something for which you are asking forgiveness. In other words, if she built the house and then said, hey, can I have a variance? That's self-inflicted. If you do something wrong and ask someone to fix it, the old forgiveness versus permission, that's self-inflicted by definition. As a matter of law, self- inflicted is not merely owning the property. When they say she sold the other lot in 2007 and created the harm, that's impossible because the staff's objection is that there is a notation on the plats that says you can't build. Whether she owns 15A or 15R or doesn't own 15R, it's the same thing. How can it be self-inflicted, if their objection would be the same whether she owned all of the lots around it or not? So that's just legally wrong. Does it create a hardship? Yes. If you deny her the variance, then under the old standard, which was higher, legally, which said that you deny her the use of the property at all. The only thing she can do is build a house on the property. If you deny her the variance, you have completely denied her any opportunity for the use of her property. That is a hardship. It is an economic hardship. It is an overall hardship. It is the complete loss of the use of the Packet Pg. 250 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the property. So it fits the definition. It's in the disjunctive in the statute and your staff has already said that otherwise it meets the criteria, they just had an objection about whether or not that was self-imposed hardship. It was not. She had the right to rely on 16 having 20 plus years of having a house there, and she knew she had an easement since she originally purchased the property. So there's no self-infliction in this case. This is just a question about meeting the terms potentially of the variance rather than just replating it. She's clearly entitled to do that because there is no other alternative for the use of the property. Mr. Alcaraz: Okay, any other questions? Yes, Mr. Cromwell. Mr. Cromwell: Why did it take five years for the judge to resolve the matter if, and you said that she's already had the easement since day one? Ms. Lauer: Because the other side fought it. There were multiple continuances. There was COVID. So, we had a pretty significant break in there. It was filed in 2019. COVID came in 20, derailed us from two trial dates, but ultimately, it was determined. I think they stopped fighting about whether or not, at first they said there was no express easement, that we had abandoned it, because we weren't using the property, because we couldn't use the property, because they wouldn't let us get access to it or build a house on it. So, it's sort of circular, but I think the order speaks for itself. It resolves all of the issues, tells us everything that we need to know, plus they wouldn't agree to where the driveway placement was, so while we had a preliminary, we had an order allowing the easement a year prior to the issuance of this order, the final order. The judge asked us if we could please try and find a location, and we had to work with the city to find what the farthest to the bottom of the property, we could put the driveway that required some coordination of effort. So the city told us where the farthest was because there are some things we can't move. I think some stormwater drains that could not be readily moved. So, we were working with the city and with Ms. Haugen's council to try and find that most effective, least impactful on Packet Pg. 251 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the the property location of the driveway, which is what you have now. The judge determined that that was the least impactful. Mr. Alcaraz: All right, any other questions? All right, you may be seated. Now we'll close and open for discussion with the commissioners. Would anyone like to start? Naomi, go ahead. Ms. Estaris: Does any of the opposition have any statements to go against what was already heard by legal? Mr. Alcaraz: We're in closed session now because I think you wanted to say something earlier. Clerk: I don't believe they can come back up. Ms. Estaris: Actually I spoke to Clifford as I was doing the assessment, and I was looking at what was actually positioned by staff, and the challenge is defining the variance, and that's really what was in question, and I still am in question, in quandary of that. I know that staff had presented a court order stating that the court order is explicitly to access the site and does not grant the applicant the right to build. But now seeing the court order, it actually now states differently, and so that's why that was the greatest concern for me, that if a court order was stated that there was no intent or was not granting the applicant to be able to build, but now looking at this newly, I love having these new documents day of, but actually this states here that the court order does allow, and it actually expresses an approved driveway and residential structure. So that totally goes against what was presented to me earlier. I agree about the hardship. When I read this originally, it was like you sold 15R and 15 was not intended to be built on, and I felt like that hardship was self-inflicted. That's how I define the self- infliction. Although you felt otherwise. But those are my two aspects in regards to the variance. If anybody could just speak on that. So it's kind of concerning as to conflicting information being presented. Packet Pg. 252 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Mr. Alcaraz: All right. Mr. Plumlee? Mr. Plumlee: Yeah, I appreciate everybody's information about this side. I took a close look at the lot, and looking back and knowing there was this express easement going all the way is very important to me to know that there was 16-1 or whatever it's called that had been deeded out without objection, signed by planning, signed by Public Works, is very important to me. To know that the order was filed in May of 2023, and the person bought their house in August of 2023 after that filing is very important to me to understand because people have title insurance. They have lawyers working on closings. They go through all this to make sure what they're buying and selling is lawful, and I see that her rights were protected, and I see that the court went far enough to demonstrate in an order its intent. Looking back at the idea of hardship, well if she couldn't be on a public street at that point, and was later given a defined area, I believe that is a hardship, and it's not self-imposed if she held that right. That's a flip view from what has been expressed and I understand that. But it's important we understand how much this person has been through to have this right in this lot, and while we're going to say 16-1 can be its own standalone lot, but Hers’ cannot be, even though she had this right, I don't think that would be appropriate, so I've moved to approve this variance for those reasons, and the reasons given by the applicant. Mr. Alcaraz: Are there any other comments? So, we have a motion by Mr. Plumlee. Ms. Hippen: I'll second. Mr. Alcaraz: Second by Ms. Hippen. I have one abstention by Ms. Byler. Are you going to read something? Ms. Byler: I have a letter on file. I'm abstaining from comment and from vote because the law firm where I work was involved in the litigation earlier. Packet Pg. 253 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Clerk: The vote is now open. By a vote of 7:3 with one abstention from Ms. Byler, Item 3 has been recommended for approval. Mr. Alcaraz: All right, thank you. Next item. What's our next item? AYE 7 NAY 3 ABS 1 ABSENT 0 Alcaraz NAY Anderson AYE Byler ABS Cromwell AYE Coston AYE Cuellar AYE Estaris NAY Hippen AYE Mauch NAY Parks AYE Plumlee AYE CONDITIONS 1. When developed, the residential dwelling shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted concept plan entitled, "Exhibit of Lot 15-A Subdivision of Lots 15 & 16 Belamy Manor B-1 & Parcel B”", dated April 19, 2024, and prepared by Hayden Frye and Associates, Inc. Land Surveyors, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 2. When developed, the residential dwelling shall substantially adhere in appearance, size and materials to the rendering entitled, "Kroll Enterprise Model 900" dated March 6, 2024, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 3. The applicant shall resubdivide the property to remove the subdivision note that prohibited this property from being a residential building site. 4. The property shall not be developed unless a private utility easement(s) is established to provide utility services to this property. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Packet Pg. 254 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Certificate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this application are valid. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Packet Pg. 255 5.L.a CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 8, 2024 12:00 P.M. 2401 Courthouse Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23456 City Hall, Building 1, 2nd Floor, Room 2034 Members Present Naomi Estaris, John Cromwell, Michael Anderson, Kathryn Byler, George Alcaraz, Bryan Plumlee, Holley Cuellar, John Coston, William Parks, Michael Mauch Members Absent Susan Hippen City Staff Present Kaitlen Alcock Marchelle Coleman Kathy Warren Carrie Bookholt Madison Eichholz Kristin Bauer Victoria Eisenberg Applicants/Applicant Representatives Attending Mike Inman Jeanne Lauer The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. by the chair, George Alcaraz. Agenda Item – Commission Discussion on Request for Special Session to Entertain Motion to reconsider the Mary Lively Application for a Subdivision Variance at GPIN 1466825107 Discussion of Reconsideration The chair, George Alcaraz, opened the meeting indicating there was some clarification that needed to be made for some of the Commissioners regarding documents submitted at the June 12th Planning Commission Hearing in relation to the Mary Lively application. Further information was provided by Victoria Eisenberg, City Attorney, stating that the reason for calling the special meeting was to entertain the possibility to reconsider the Mary Lively 1 Packet Pg. 256 5.L.a application only and not to discuss the merits of the application, as it was not advertised or Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the noticed for a public hearing on a Planning item. She advised the Commission that they can discuss why they believe there is reason to reconsider the application based on lack of clarity or new evidence presented. Commissioner Cromwell made a motion to reconsider the Mary Lively application. Commissioner Mauch seconded the motion. It was confirmed that Commissioner Cromwell was on the prevailing side when the application was initially heard by the Planning Commission and thus was able to make the motion to reconsider the application. Following the motion and the second, Chairman Alcaraz opened the floor for discussion. Commissioner Cromwell stated he would like the application to be reconsidered based on the additional information provided by the applicant’s representative at the hearing to ensure all members had a chance to thoroughly review the material. Commissioner Mauch stated that his grounds for reconsideration were based on procedural matters, namely that following the motion and the second at the initial hearing, the Commission immediately went into the vote with leaving time for discuss and a possible substitute motion. There was discussion about how to handle new information presented to the Commission at the hearing and ensuring time is allotted for discussion prior to the vote. Commissioner Plumlee advised he was made aware of a potential other party to the application that he felt should have been disclosed to ensure there were not any conflicts of interest for any Commissioner. He further mentioned Robert’s Rules of Order and following the same procedures, refraining from any discussion until after a motion and a second had been made. Commissioner Byler stated she felt discussion prior to the motion and second was helpful to allow additional questions to be asked of the applicant as well as those in support of or opposition to the application. Additional discussion was had regarding how to handle when new information is presented during the hearing to ensure all Commissioners have time to review and evaluate the material and make it available to the public and potential changes to the Commission’s bylaw. Victoria Eisenburg, City Attorney, noted that further discussion on this topic would be better suited to take place at Wednesday’s July 10th Public Hearing. Overall, the Commissioners agreed that they did not receive what they considered extremely relevant information until the hearing. Following the discussion, the motion to approve the reconsideration passed by a vote of 10 to 0. 2 Packet Pg. 257 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Virginia Beach Planning Commission August 14, 2024 Public Meeting Item # 2 Mary Lively Recommendation: RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL Discussion Mr. Alcaraz: Alright, thank you. Those items that were approved, you can get with your planning representative, and they'll tell you when you'll be seen at City Council. Thank you for coming. We'll move now to the regular agenda. Madam Clerk, which one? Madam Clerk: Agenda item #2, Mary Lively. Mr. Alcaraz: Okay, if you can come forward, state your name. Mr. Inman: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. We are back to present once again, and our information for this application, and it’s an important decision on your part for this property owner as you know, as with me today, Mary Lively, the applicant and my law partner, Jeannie Lauer. I trust you received a packet of information from us, which was rather large, but in considering our recommendation of denial from the staff we needed to be prepared and to prepare you. We trust you will agree with us after a review of the history of this lot, and the group of lots for which it's a part. Because of the changes over time, the current legal and physical situation with this lot is quite different from the six lot subdivision that was conceived and platted in 1979. It's also critical to understand the rulings and the testimony in the lawsuit that ensued between Ms. Lively and the neighboring property owner regarding access to the property across a 10 foot strip that resulted from a re-subdivision that you all have seen. I'm aware of your thorough discussion this morning in the informal session. However, we've got some ground to cover here this afternoon, and we will do so as soon as we can Packet Pg. 258 5.L.a here. On pages three and four of the staff report, there's an evaluation by Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the staff which acknowledges that four of five criteria needed for a variance are met. The issue here today appears to be solely the hardship issue, and we're prepared to address that, and we'll show you that a hardship exists, and is required, and should be granted, a variant should be granted. I want to now ask my partner, Jeannie Lauer, to come forward. She has the history with this property, and the lawsuit, and she will share that with you. Ms. Lauer: Thank you. It's really important to understand how this property evolved because I think there's a lot of misconception about it. The houses on Rollingwood Arch, including the one that Mr. Wessler, one of the individuals objecting to, those all happened in 1971. They were built into that subdivision. The back lots, which includes Mary Lively's lot also referred to as the A lots, because the front is 15-R and the back is 15-A. Those didn't come into existence until 1979, when there was a subdivision replat. So, they were not joined together ever, and they were not divided at any point in time, 15-A, Mary Lively's lot, has always sat independently of the lot in front of it. It's always existed as a separate lot. And the only reason in 1979 that they made that subdivision was because Autumn Harvest Drive dead ended into what was then 16, what's now 1, where Mr. Ramsamooj lives, and they had problems with people coming through. They were walking down it, they were leaving trash, it was a haven for teenagers. So, all of these owners together as neighbors got together, and they established these back lots, and their intention was if you wanted to make it part of your backyard, you could, but you weren't required to, and in fact, nobody ever did. Packet Pg. 259 5.L.a What they did do was put up a gate at Autumn Harvest Drive, so that they Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the didn't have, and since they control the property now, they didn't have to worry about people walking along the back. So, what happened after that? Because if you look at the transcript of testimony of our zoning administrator, Mr. Kemp who testified in the litigation that Mary Lively had, he said, you don't just look at the old plat note and go, oh sorry, it's not buildable. What are we going to do? You have to look at the difference between what's evolved at the time. The lot existed or was platted and what occurs now, what has developed since that period of time, and since the time that it was platted in 1979, in 1987, the zoning administrator and the planning commission, everybody signed off on the replat of lot 13 of these 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 lots, lot 13 wasn't added just to the front. It was subdivided. Some of it was put here, some of it was put here. But you know what happened? The note that said, not a buildable lot, disappeared. In 1988, again, City of Virginia Beach said, sure, go ahead, put out a replot for lot 16. That was Ms. Hawkins’ house. So, that's 1988. Everybody signed off on it, the planning commission, zoning director. Yeah, it's absolutely fine. No obligation to contain that residential building note, or not a residential building site. In 1995, the city of Virginia Beach said, sure, go ahead and replot lot 12. Divide it up amongst you, lot 5 of the new subdivision, whatever you want to do. We don't have a problem with you removing the note. So, now lot 12 doesn't contain a restriction on that replat. Then we get to 2002, same thing happens for 14. They don't have to get a variance. They don't have to do anything to remove a plat note. City of Virginia Beach just says, okay. So as of 2002, the City of Virginia Beach has said to 16, 14, 13, and 12, go ahead, remove the plat note because it's not relevant anymore, because it doesn’t matter, because we have development, we’re doing this and that, we Packet Pg. 260 5.L.a don’t care. Because it was never intended to represent the condition of Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the building on the property. It never indicated there was a problem with the stability of the soil. It never indicated it wouldn't perk correctly. It was a note that the individuals contracted to put on that plat, and that was it. So when Mary Lively sold, when she owned 15 Front, 15-R, and she owned the lot that we're talking about today, 15-A, she did that in 2009. At that point in time, not only did she know that she had a 20-year-old express easement in a deed that said she was going to be able to access that property through lot 16, where there was already a house, she had the knowledge that the City of Virginia Beach had said yes to 16, yes to 14, yes to 13, and yes to 12. That only left 11 and her. Was she taking a risk? No. Why would she have any reason to believe that she was? What's more, the individual who bought the property, Mr. Wessler, I understand he thought originally that both lots were part of the purchase. Didn't understand that they were separate lots, had always been separate lots. But he wasn't interested in paying for it, although he may have been interested in acquiring it when he thought they were joined together. Nonetheless, when he tells you that he was buying unawares. That's not true. He made Ms. Lively enter into an easement, into an agreement that she would never seek to get an easement across his property, the front of 15, in case anything went wrong with the easement across 16. So, did he buy with full knowledge of the circumstances of the property, and her intent to eventually build a house on it? Yes, absolutely, he did, and to protect himself, he made her sign an agreement. So, what did Mary Lively do? She did everything right. She did everything according to the law. When Ms. Hawkins wouldn't allow her to easily use the property, and in fact made a point of putting up those lovely crepe myrtles that you see to block her access readily driving across the lot. Mary put up with it for a Packet Pg. 261 5.L.a long time, but there came a point when she was ready to build the house, Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the and she needed to get access and it was being blocked, and that's why we had to go to court and litigate for five years. So, she didn't build first and ask later. It wasn't a question of, you know, permission. She did everything right. That's not what the hardship cases are. It's not self-imposed, and the way that you know it's not self-imposed is because the city says it's self-imposed because she sold 15-R and kept 15- A. No, if she owned 15-R today and we wanted to build a house on it, guess what? We'd be back down here. Same problem. We couldn't run an easement or a driveway through 15-R, even if we were prohibited from doing it. We had this express easement. So, it's just not logical to say she created a hardship when the thing that they say created it, the sale of that lot, if she hadn't sold it would be exactly the same position, and the Virginia Supreme Court has also said it's not when you do something in reliance on a variance or the potential for change. It's when you do something outside or in violation of zoning, and she didn't do that. She didn't do anything she wasn't supposed to. She didn't rely on a change in zoning. It was only a question of the width and the depth of the lot, and by the way, this is a big lot. Twice as large as is required by the development. So, when people start talking about fitting a square peg in a round hole, it's not a good analogy. This is a big piece of property. Much larger than their lot, and the extent to which to be impacted is no. I see that my time has expired. I'd welcome any questions from the city. Mr. Alcaraz: Is there any opposition, Madam Clerk? There is, okay. We'll get you back up. Thank you. Madam Clerk: We have two speakers today. First is Brad Wessler, followed by Cathy Perry. Packet Pg. 262 5.L.a Mr. Alcaraz: State your name and location of your property. Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Mr. Wessler: Sure, Brad Wessler. I'm the owner of 15-R 1140 Rollingwood Arch. When they say that the items were replated, I don’t think it is the right terminology, nobody built on those lots. So maybe things have shifted, but nobody's asked to build a residence on that. The applicant, Mary Lively, made the decision to subdivide the parcel 15-A and 15-R in 2007. She then sold me 15-R in 2009. At the time when we purchased the residence, the 1979 plat was still in existence, all the lots behind me were not buildable, so I bought the lot knowing that they were two separate pieces. I did not own the one behind me. I was very well aware of that, and that I would have to move forward in a different way. But I had attorneys and my realtor stating that was an unvotable lot. That was part of my attraction to it. Yes, it is a large lot, but that's consistent with the neighborhood, it's a neighborhood feature. In the fall of 2009. just months after purchasing 15 are, this Mary lively proposed my wife and I, that we purchase or make an offer on lot 15A, we entered into negotiations via email, but we couldn't agree upon a price. At the time, the assessed value of the 15-A was $30,000. Ms. Lively indicated to me that she would not accept anything less than $120,000. We could not identify a lender willing to approve funding so significantly above the appraised value, and the negotiations unfortunately stalled. In comparison, it is also made that the adjacent lot, 16-A, was modified so that a residence could be built upon it. However, it's necessary to look a little bit more deeply at that transaction. Lot 16-A was re platted when the Stratford Green subdivision was made, and a note from the 1979 plot was that the residential building lot would be null and void. Therefore, a subdivision variance was not required at that time. This was changed due to a change in alignment in our Autumn Harvest Drive. It changed that did not affect or modify the restrictions of lots 15-A or the four lots north of it. Packet Pg. 263 5.L.a A great deal has also been said about the circuit court order from May 2023. Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the It's an incumbent to look at that one a little bit deeper. The order specifically grants lot 15-A. A 10-foot wide easement through the former lot of 16-A for construction of a driveway. This order explicitly for access to lot 15-A, something that has never formally been completed. This order does not grant the applicant the right to build a residential dwelling. If this point remains contested, I would respectfully ask that the city attorney be consulted for their opinion, as this fact has been supported by city staff. Finally, this application is not supported by those who currently reside in the affected community. Before you should be four letters of opposition and 23 signatures from residents opposing this particular request. Each of these letters have been previously provided. While this number might not seem substantial in face value, I point that our neighborhood is small. It's only comprised of two streets and there's only a few dozen residences, so that number is larger than it may seem. When my wife and I purchased a lot 15 years ago, we were supported by attorneys, city policies and codes that have been established for over 30 years. The lot 15-A was deemed an unbuildable lot. By modifying the current plat, which has been in place for 45 years, you're agreeing to essentially what should be my backyard and build a residence upon it. We attempted to remedy this situation by purchasing the lot from the applicant, but was not willing or able to pay an asking price four times the assessed value. Mr. Alcaraz: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Is there any questions for the speaker? None, thank you. Next speaker. Madam Clerk: Next speaker is Cathy Perry, and that will be our last speaker. Mr. Alcaraz: Just state your name and your address. Packet Pg. 264 5.L.a Ms. Perry: My name is Cathy Perry. I live at 981 Autumn Harvest, which abuts the Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the property 15-A. I'm in the back corner of that, and I do have some knowledge about some of the past. I did write an extensive letter to Ms. Estaris, an email, and it did not get to her. Her email was not working. I sent it to, I think it was Ms. Warren and Ms. Kristen to be distributed to each of the members, and to my knowledge that was not done as well. I can't read this whole letter because I poured my heart and soul in it, but I do want to just bring up a couple things. One regarding a statement by the lawyer. She said that Mrs. Hawkins obstructed the use of that lot. She absolutely did not. I've seen many times, it was mowed, two trees were cut down. They had free access. Leaving a lot of ruts in her yard, I might add. So, it was not obstructed, that use was not obstructed at all. So, in addition to what I see as an injustice with her property being taken down, I'm concerned about the driveway being put right on an S-shaped curve. It's very much right in the middle of that curve, and when I'm going from my house after Stratford Case, it's difficult to see around it, and if you add a driveway right at that location, right in the middle of the S. It's going to increase the chance of having an accident there, because I'm vary, about every time I go around there, and if it's more than one occupancy that's built there, it will double it. I also object to the fact that they're going to, from my understanding, and I hope I'm wrong, that they're going to cut down to mature crepe myrtle trees that have been there ever since I've been there over 30 years, and that they would be taken down to put this driveway in, a permanent driveway on someone else's property, that if she wants to mow the property they're going to have to go over the driveway, and then to the other side to mow the other side, which to me does not, it just seems like the property has just been taken away, and I really object to that. I'm concerned about the position of the house. They showed a house positioned on their proposal. It was at the far right side of the property, and Packet Pg. 265 5.L.a my question is, why is it all the way over there when it's a lot of space in Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the that lot? Is there a plan for another house to be built? Because if that is the case, yes, it is a big lot, but that's going to increase the possibility of a dangerous situation on the curve, and it's going to look really bad when you enter my neighborhood. It is not going to look good. I just object to Mrs. Lively, I'm sure is a fine person, and I can understand how she wants to earn a lot of money by selling this lot, but when she earns money at the expense of other people, the lot was devalued once that access was learned. Mr. Alcaraz: All right. Thank you for your time. Is there any questions for the speaker? None? Oh, yeah. Did you sign up? Mr. D’adarria: I did not. I simply, I want to say that I am the new owner of -- Mr. Alcaraz: Can we have him? Is he, we got to get you if you signed up? I know, but I got to get you on tape if you say something, but you can't say it over there. So, I'm asking, can we have him speak? Madam Clerk: He didn't register, so he can register if he wants to speak. Mr. Alcaraz: Just come forward, but please check in. We will hear him now. We just got a process. We got to run. State your name and your address again. Mr. D’adarria: My name is Marc D’adarria. Address is 989 Autumn Harvest Drive. I closed on the property on Friday, and I had no idea of the legal process that was in place or ongoing with this property. The lot itself that is there right now that I was told is a non-buildable lot, was definitely part of the reason I made my decision to buy this house. I understand the person I bought the house from Mr. Ramsamooj was the most recent member as part of the lawsuit. I'm simply asking for information before anyone moves forward in either direction on this, so I could weigh in fairly and absolutely give a Packet Pg. 266 5.L.a good information and participation with the way ahead on this property Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the adjacent to my own property. All I can say here for the record is that the property area per square foot sounds big absolutely, but the street itself is kind of small, and to put two more, one more driveway next to the driveway that I could barely fit into right now. I agree completely with the residents who have been there for a while that it really makes a dangerous situation on the desk curve. But again, I do, ask the Council to provide time at least for me to get information, and be well informed so I can participate from this point forward. Mr. Alcaraz: All right. Thank you. Any questions? Yes. Ms. Cuellar: Which property is yours? Because we don't have the addresses. Mr. D’adarria: They would have to cut through my property to make their driveway. Ms. Cuellar: So, the question was, which one are you the one? There's five or six stars. Mr. D’adarria: I'm the red star. Ms. Cuellar: Okay. So, you're the one that's on the curve. Okay, 16-A. That's what I was asking. Okay, thank you. Mr. Alcaraz: Are there any questions for the applicant, Mr. Plumlee? Mr. Plumlee: I believe it's 16-A. At the time of purchase, were you made aware of an easement that goes through for a driveway? Mr. D’adarria:: No, I was not. Packet Pg. 267 5.L.a Mr. Alcaraz: Any other questions for the speaker? And you can probably get some Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the information from the planning department behind you. Mr. D’adarria:: So, the orange sign, I'm glad I did. Mr. Alcaraz: Yeah, I think there's a number on there. You can contact or maybe a website. You can probably see it. All right. Thank you. I'm going to call the applicant to rebut, and then give you a chance to answer any questions that the commissioners might have for you. Ms. Lauer: If the gentleman would like, I have an extra copy of the order, and after I'm done, I'd be happy to provide it to him so he can see what it says. Since apparently someone is not doing their job in title searching, Mr. Ramsamooj had Chicago title, and was fully insured at the time he brought the property who just sold to this gentleman, and this gentleman should similarly have title insurance and a full title search. As I said, we did everything right to make sure that this was placed in the land records in a manner that would allow any purchaser without any doubt to know what was happening. I appreciate it's a nimby situation. We don't want yet another house. We like having open land. I get all of that. But we're talking about an individual's ability for use of the property. She's been paying taxes on this property since 2001. Every year, faithfully, she pays them. She maintains the lot. She does everything that she's supposed to do. The other point that I wanted to make was before there's a staff recommendation that if the planning commission determines that it will approve the variance, which it most definitely should not just on the facts, but on the law that a separate private utility easement should be established, that's not necessary. Please look at paragraph four of Judge Mahan's order, which is included in your packet. It's the same one that says you can build a residential structure, not two. It says you can build one driveway. Packet Pg. 268 5.L.a It says that you can alter, place, and relocate any and all utilities in the Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the driveway space, and we have verified with Mr. Kemp in advance that utilities can be placed in a driveway easement if there is express language identifying the fact that the utilities are allowed to be placed there also. So, it's unnecessary to require utility easement. We already have it. As far as the tree removal, the plans themselves tell you that the two center crepe myrtles are coming out. That's because we delegated to the City of Virginia Beach to tell us what was the farthest, the point farthest away from the house that this gentleman is just purchased. So, it would cause the least disturbance and the city told us, based on where all the utility lines are, based on the curvature of the street, that's where it's supposed to go. We didn't come up with it, the city came up with it. And in fact, the Development Services Center for the City of Virginia Beach in 2021 gave us an address on Autumn Harvest Drive based on the suggested placement of the driveway, and the Development Services Center is also the one that approved the ability to place the driveway where it's currently located on the plat. So again, Mary Lively doing everything in the order that she's supposed to do, seeking to cause the least amount of difficulty to anyone because she's placed it as far away as possible. I can't address whether there's a perception that it will cause additional problems because of where the placement is, because the city told us to put it there, and I would assume based on their curvature tables, based on the way that the street is laid out, that they've correctly evaluated the information, and said that's where the driveway should go. Again, going back to hardship, it's not self-imposed. It isn't under the law. Not under any set of circumstances, and she does have the right, and no matter what this council or what this commission does, she's allowed to build that driveway. Whether it ever connects to a residence, would be unfortunate. But that driveway goes in no matter what and there's nothing Packet Pg. 269 5.L.a anyone can do about it. So, knowing that two crepe myrtles are coming Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the down because of a court order and knowing that the driveway is going in because of a court order. The only issue is whether or not she should be allowed to build this house, and the answer should clearly be yes, at this time. I'm about to lose all of my time. So, are there any questions at all that I can answer? Mr. Alcaraz: Don't worry about the time because we got, I'm sure some of these commissioners have. So just stay right there. I'm going to open the floor for questions. Ms. Hippen? Ms. Hippen: Okay, so this has been a long-discussed item, and here's what I see. I see that there was one subdivision, that properties in that subdivision were subdivided, and another subdivision put in and a road went through a property that was moved from one subdivision to another. So, the plots that we are seeing with the notes and without the notes are for two different subdivisions. What troubles me is that in 2009, the gentleman, the first gentleman that spoke, purchased a portion of Ms. Lively's lot. Ms. Lauer: No, that's where he's wrong. She never subdivided her lot, 15R is what Mr. Wessler purchased. That's always been a separate lot since the time that house was built on it back in 1971. 15-A was created by completely different people in 1979. It didn't exist as a separate 15-A lot at the time the house was originally built. She didn't do anything to subdivide it. That was done by different people. Ms. Hippen: Okay, hold on. I wasn't done. Go back to the very first plot, please, Marcelle. Okay. Right here. Those are different lots. Okay, 15 is right there. So, there's no 15-A, B, C, D, or R. Okay. Ms. Lauer: Correct. Packet Pg. 270 5.L.a Ms. Hippen: So now, the gentleman asked to buy the lot and I'm not asking, I'm saying Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the this is what I'm getting from this. The gentleman asked to buy the lot. The lot was valued at $30,000. He was quoted that she would only sell it for $120,000. There's no way he was going to get financing. I agree with what he stated, and then here we have this guy here who's just bought a lot, and we heard from another person about 16-A, which is now a different shape lot because Autumn Harvest Drive went through. So my concern is that and 15 was a portion of 15-A. 15-R and 15-A were one lot. Ms. Lauer: No, never. Mr. Wessler, what is, if you go back to the first screen, or go back one plat, where it just shows 15, 14, 13, before you put this, see where it's 15 up there? That's exactly the size lot, exactly the dimensions of the lot that Mr. Wessler bought. Ms. Hippen: When did the other portions come in because three people along there, four people along there either own the lot or they expanded their lots, and bought the rest of the property. Ms. Lauer: Okay, it's not even, you'll just see all of the plat notes at the very top. Where it's 16, 15, 14, 13, okay, that's the general area plus a much larger piece that were owned by Elizabeth White. That was never part of that subdivision. Those individuals, the neighbors, the people who owned Mr. Compton, Mr. Wasserman owned 16. Mr. Compton owned 15. I think the Winfrey's owned 14 maybe. Anyway, all these neighbors got together and bought from this woman. The space of land behind them, which is just a blank piece. It didn't have any designations on it. Then they further subdivided it to call it 15A, 16A which is what you see there. But that whole colored section in this plat, that didn't exist in that form at the time that the subdivision was built. The houses were all in existence in 1971. It wasn't until 10 years later or eight Packet Pg. 271 5.L.a years later, that this other portion came into being, and exactly because Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Autumn Harvest Drive, as you see, comes in, there were people. Ms. Hippen: My concern is that, okay, so a court stated that the gentleman that now has what is lot 16-A, which looks different because Autumn Harvest was carved through, and 15 -- so there has been dissension over access to that property for years because the gentleman that owns 15-R, you said, made sure that you signed a statement that they could not have access across his property. Ms. Lauer: Across 15-R because they already had it through 16-A, but he wanted to make sure that they would never suggest that they had any rights of access, but his statement that she subdivided it or did something different, that's just not accurate. Ms. Hippen: So, you're telling me that this gentleman did not ask to buy that land? Ms. Lauer: He asked subsequent to his purchase of 15-R to buy 15-A, which is dramatically larger, and should have with all of the knowledge that the not for residential building had been vacated for 16, 14, 13, and 12, because all that had happened already. Ms. Hippen: 11 and 11-A are owned by the same person. The person that has 12 bought 12-A. The person that has 13, bought 13-A. The person that has 14 bought 14-A, but 15R was not allowed. He was told that the land was going to be sold to him for four times the price. Ms. Lauer: No, I'm sorry, but that's not what happened. Ms. Hippen: She didn't want $120,000 for 15-A instead of the $30,000 that he suggested, is that what you are telling me? Packet Pg. 272 5.L.a Ms. Lauer: First of all, those aren't accurate, but I'm telling you that 12A- wasn't Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the purchased by the owner of 12-R. They kept a piece of it, and then they sold off another piece of it to somebody else. That was the replat. The same thing happened with 13. Ms. Hippen: Okay, but those have street access, 15-A doesn't have street access. Ms. Lauer: No, those don't have street access. Ms. Hippen: They do now because they bought land, that's my point. They’re added on to their land so that those landlocked properties were not there. Ms. Lauer: There was an easement that was created in 1979 when all of those parcels were first put into a subdivision that said everybody gets to go through 16A. 11 was allowed to go through 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 to get to Autumn Harvest Drive. There was an easement given to 13 to go through 14, 15, and 16. Ms. Hippen: Okay, that's not what I'm asking, but my question, the next question that I have is, who's going to live in the house that's built on 15-A? If they're allowed to build it. Is she building this house? So that she can sell it. Or is this going to be her next home? Ms. Lauer: I don't know the answer to that. I think she's going to find out what she can afford to do once it's built. Mr. Alcaraz: Okay, thank you. All right, any other questions? Mr. Parks? Mr. Parks: I just want to piggyback off what Commissioner Hippen was saying 12. 13, and 14, it is my understanding they have street access now through Rollingwood Arch. Packet Pg. 273 5.L.a Ms. Lauer: No. Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Mr. Plumlee: How, no? Ms. Lauer: They don't. The lots were cut in pieces, and that's why the report that you have doesn't do a good job. If you actually look at the plats that we included, you'll see that they apportioned it some up here, some down here. The configuration isn’t a straight ratio. When they replated, they vacated all of the platinates about not buildable, and then 12-R sold a portion of it, and what you can't see back there is the new subdivision. That's a house. But if you look at the top of 12-A there's another lot on top of that. It's not a street. Mr. Plumlee: I am familiar with the neighborhood, so that wasn't my question. Ms. Lauer: But no, you can't get, they're part of a lot. So now whatever access 12 has whatever 12, it’s not even 12-A anymore, but they've redrawn the property lines. So there's only now one 12. Mr. Plumlee: So why wouldn't that lot now have street access on Rollingwood Arch? Ms. Lauer: I suppose if you say that it accrued by virtue of the ownership, but it's not a separate lot, 1-2A. Mr. Plumlee: Yeah, understood, but what we were told in the informal is 11-11A, 12- 12A, 13-13A, 14-14A, we're all under common ownership as well as 15 until it was sold and Ms. Lively had kept 15-A and sold 15R-. Had 15-R and 15-A been kept together, this wouldn't be an issue. Your comment earlier about the fact that they wouldn't have street access, you would have street access through Rollingwood Arch. Packet Pg. 274 5.L.a Ms. Lauer: No, you wouldn't. Not to build a separate residential structure, if that's what Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the you're talking about. Mr. Plumlee: I'm not talking about building a separate residential structure, which is what the note in 1979 said, was that those lots in the back were not to be made residential structures. So, the argument, at least as far as I can see, is it is self-imposed because by selling 15-R she lost her street access. Even though she's been given access now through the court, I mean the statement that she does not have access and those people have access is not true. They are all getting frontage from Rollingwood Arch for their larger lot that has now been kept under common ownership. Ms. Lauer: Not if you treat them, they're not separate lots. So, it's not apples to oranges. The only one that's apples to oranges is 16, which house got built on it. It's completely separate. Mr. Plumlee: Because it was replated in another subdivision. Ms. Lauer: It doesn't matter whether there's another subdivision or an existing subdivision, it's still taking what everyone seems to be so concerned about, which is a plat note, and saying, does Mary get to call her 15-A if she invents a brand-new subdivision name, does that make it okay? I don't think so, but that's the equivalency that we're trying to draw here. There's no street access, and all of those lots had access to a street, Autumn Harvest Drive, because it was created at the time each one of those lots was originally created in 1979, and the court didn't develop anything new. The court confirmed the existence of an easement that was already there and had been there for 30, 40 years now. Mr. Plumlee: Right, but my understanding is the easement is for access, it didn’t confirm, easement to build another house to provide access to that house, down road. Packet Pg. 275 5.L.a Ms. Lauer: Yeah, you don't get an easement for that because an easement is the right to Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the use somebody else's property, but to build a house, you have to own the property. So, it's not quite the same thing. Mr. Plumlee: I just want to clarify. My understanding from looking at the staff note was that Ms. Lively bought her lot in 2007, not 2001. That's important to me. I am showing, it says, the applicant acquired lots 15-A and 15-R in 2007. So, I put a little dog ear on that. It's important. Because she bought five years after 12, 13, and 14 consolidated their lot. Ms. Lauer: No, it was 2001. We have put the deed in your packet. It's exhibit 12. This 10th day of August, 2001. She bought from the Harrington's and the Winfrey's, and it went to Donald Meeks and Mary Lively Meeks, that was her name at the time. Mr. Plumlee: Wasn’t it in the name lively until 2007. Is that fair? Ms. Lauer: It was, yeah, it was Lively Meeks. I don't know how that got indexed, but yes, since 2001, she owns the property. In 2001. That's when it was purchased by her, along with her then husband. Mr. Plumlee: So you're saying it's 01, you have a deed, fine. I just wanted to point out that difference in the staff note, but you're saying it's because it was a name change, that they may have referenced it 2007. Ms. Lauer: I don't know why they made the conclusion. Sometimes I see 07s as 1s, especially in old documents. So perhaps someone looked at it and it looked like with the little arm out. It could have been, it could have been a typo. Mr. Plumlee: Okay. With regard to the easement that you're saying that she has for access, that's something that's always existed. Packet Pg. 276 5.L.a Ms. Lauer: Since the creation of that lot, 15-A, yes. Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Mr. Plumlee: And it existed for 14, 13, and 12 also to reach access to that as well. Ms. Lauer: And 11 as well. Mr. Plumlee: And 11, and they all chose to consolidate, to get rid of that hot line at some point, 12, 13 and 14. Ms. Lauer: Yes. When 12, 13 and 14 owners of the houses, they sold it to the developer who is developing the back subdivision. Ms. Plumlee: Okay. Ms. Lauer: So he had sufficient land, I assume, sufficient square footage, who knows. Mr. Plumlee: Let me make sure I understand. So, 12, 13, and 14 consolidated at some point prior to 2002 or up to that. Is that fair? Ms. Lauer: Yes. Mr. Plumlee: So for now, like 22 years, they've been without the ownership or they've consolidated that what was once divided into one lot. Is that fair? Ms. Lauer: They redrew property lines, but yes, essentially that's true. Mr. Plumlee: Okay. So, when 1986 came around, and the 16-A was removed from the subdivision, and put in another subdivision, and the street came there, it made more practical this driveway. Fair? Ms. Lauer: Yes. Packet Pg. 277 5.L.a Mr. Plumlee: Okay, and that was years before 12, 13, and 14 got rid of their subdivision Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the line, but they chose not to seek access to the back and develop at that point, and then your client by the time 2009 came around, was she not the sole remaining lot who had not consolidated? Who had a divided lot? That was within feet of the roadway? Was the only one situated? Ms. Lauer: That's absolutely true. She was the only one who still maintains an express easement by deed for access to Autumn Harvest Drive across the small section of autumn harvest drive once it had been created, and by the way, 16A that was the developer or the developer's mother, and they all in property. Mr. Plumlee: Okay. So, when I'm looking at the hardship, and you've been arguing that she's complied with everything and I've heard that. There was an express easement that everyone was aware of that connected it. That had always existed, and you just needed the court to reaffirm that. That's all that happened. Now the question is whether she perpetuated this, but the lot lines separating those lots, that's what created the hardship, and that goes back to 1979. Long before she purchased her lot, and long before she put it on the market. Do you disagree with me on that point? Ms. Lauer: No, absolutely not. Mr. Plumlee: Thank you. Mr. Alcaraz: Mr. Coston? Mr. Coston: I think she answered my question. I was going to ask if the access was in the deed, and she said it was. Mr. Alcaraz: So you're satisfied now? Okay. Ms. Hippen, did you want to conclude your questions? Packet Pg. 278 5.L.a Ms. Hippen: I wish I could get an answer on who's going to live in the house. Okay, Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the because the appearance here is that this is all for money. Okay. Yes, the easement is there. The understanding that I got when I looked at the plots was that the note didn't just disappear. One plot was for one development. Another plot was for another development. So the two different name developments did not have the same note. I personally would not characterize it as it just disappeared. No, it didn't disappear. But it has been long standing that these lots were not to be, these portions of the lots that were away from the streets were not to be developed with homes because they do not fit the ordinances of the city, and the person on Rollingwood that's in 11 is the owner of 11-A. So there's no issue with access, 12, 13, and 14 bought the other portion to resolve the issue. The only issue is that 15-R was sold off, and 15-A has had access, but the court just made it clear that she can have that access and for us not to know, it's one thing, and I thought it was presented last month that she was going to put her home there. She was going to live there. So now it's not a case of she's going to live there. It's a case of the lot 15-R was sold off for a certain amount, 15- A was not sold because the asking price and the actual price were four times different, four to one. So that's just my opinion. Mr. Alcaraz: Mr. Mauch? Mr. Mauch: I believe we've got away from what it is that we're looking at here. We're looking to allow a variance for this house to be built, and, what you say is that, we should approve it based on the facts and the law, but I would believe that the law from our city attorney's standpoint and correct me if I am wrong, is that this just that easement allows for access doesn't allow it for anything besides access. So, what we should be looking at is a variance, which is what we're being asked. So far, she has done nothing outside of zoning to get to this point. She's done it all correctly. Now, the only thing that's not correct is the variance, what she needs an exception for in order to build. In Packet Pg. 279 5.L.a my opinion, it doesn't meet our zoning, and I do not or cannot support Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the allowing for this variance, and for that reason, I'm going to make a motion for denial. Mr. Alcaraz: All right. Any other comments or questions? Mr. Coston: I can't have a motion yet because I have some more to say if we're, if we're going to discuss it, that's fine. Mr. Alcaraz: Yeah, we'll discuss it. Do I have a second for the motion? Mr. Mauch: I'll second the motion. Mr. Alcaraz: I have a second. Discussion? Mr. Coston: I don't think it's material whether the house is going to be sold or who's going to live in it, and I understand from doing record searches on my own, just on a little lesson that all the time streets or access weren't drawn on deeds. I think that access still remains, always has and should stay that way. The courts have given her not only access for a driveway, it says driveway and residence, and I would support that, and I would support a variance based on the fact that I hate to see land block property, and I hate to see property that it has no access in perpetuity, and there is a diminished benefit to the city. Even in the value of $30,000 for tax purposes versus $120,000 for tax purposes. So, I think the city gets a benefit in the long run as well as the owner gets to build a house whether she lives in it or not. So, I would support the variance. Mr. Alcaraz: Mr. Plumlee? Mr. Plumlee: I'd like to thank everybody. In particular, the Planning Commission members, because this is the stuff I get excited about and go into work all Packet Pg. 280 5.L.a the time, and this is what I do. It gets me all jazzed up. I know following Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the the ball on all of this, it can make your eyeballs spin around, but everybody has done great, and bringing this back has done nothing but help this process, and that was a good move. Okay. It was a good move and needed to be done. What John Coston just summed it up. I mean, he just said it. I should just leave it alone, but you know, I can't be quiet. Contracts and agreements were taught. Don't put culpability on it because people want to make a buck. Don't add because we all want to make a buck, none of us either are free from the desire to pursue happiness, right? And to do that, and I don't place that burden on anyone that wants to get full value of the property. In 2009, when she sold to this nice gentleman, very articulate gentleman, well she wanted more for that back lot. Now, 1986 has come and gone, and now you've got the access point really narrow. It's pretty obvious she's got the express access. It's is in writing. It took going to court to prove it again, but it was there the whole time. So ,she's going to give it away to somebody who says, I want a bigger backyard. I always thought it'd be mine. That's not what he negotiated for and that's not what he got. So, at this point, what we're trying to do is look at hardship, and when you say these words, self-created hardship that puts that sort of culpable thing to it, but that's not really how you're supposed to look at it, is it her fault? That's not the process. In 1979, when they went back and added all this property, and they subsidized that way, and they created the access, that's what created this mess. That's what did it. And then over the years, in 86, one gets chopped off in whatever years up to 2002, the other three consolidate. That's a new world now. She's sitting there on an island with this Lot 15, and so she goes to court, she says, I've got access, the judge says, you do have access, and so now she's coming to say, I'd like a variance, so that I can build a home, whether Packet Pg. 281 5.L.a it's for her or to sell it for her retirement, that's her business. So I look up Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the the log. Okay, my first encounter of one of these was 1999. It was up against the City of Virginia Beach. Okay. I know how these notes are treated. I respect everybody's opinion about it because even judges disagree over and over and over about it. So everybody has that problem. But here we go. We have a circuit court that says when you have a particular zoning, and then that property is prohibited from ever being used for that use. That's a hardship, and it would be unreasonable, this is told to a Board of Zoning Appeals, it would be unreasonable then to deny them that right to build what you've zoned and said goes there. So yeah, when the street came along, it was easier to allow that to go forward under 16 one, and this is a little different because you don't have lot connection, but I certainly see a hardship, and that's why I would vote in favor of recommendation. Mr. Alcaraz: All right, any other comments? Mr. Coston? Mr. Coston: I'd also like to point out the fact that when you buy a house nowadays, you get a survey, you don't get a plan. Nobody goes down and looks at what everybody has said from year-to-year. You get a survey, a current survey of what the lot looks like. So, to say that I bought something, and I knew that I couldn't build on it, it is also not necessary the truth either 'cause I own something that has three lots only. It's always been treated as one and surveyed as one, and I thought once upon a time, maybe I could subdivide mine, and build something. So, I think that's something you can't really jump to a conclusion and say, I bought this with the idea that I might, the gentleman who just bought a house, he didn't know he didn't get all that. All he got was a survey. He didn't get all that back information. So, it's not necessarily true that. Just because you know you bought a house that you didn't know that you couldn't subdivide. Packet Pg. 282 5.L.a Mr. Alcaraz: All right, thank you. So right now we have a motion by Mr. Mauch to deny Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the the application, seconded by Mr. Cromwell. Mr. Mauch: I don't think that the reason for denial for me is because I feel as though we are imposing this on the neighbors that have spoken up in opposition for us to allow for an exception to be able to allow them to build a house. I think the two decisions we have to make here. One is, do we allow for one person to build on their property? Because they have an issue that has been resolved with access, but the people around them purchased because it said that there was it was not buildable or purchased not because of, but under the impression that a lot wasn't buildable, and so do we allow for the one person to build on the lot or do we agree with our current zoning that says that it has to have a certain amount of street frontage, and not have the ability to build on it because with the support of the neighborhood saying that they don't agree with it either. I think it comes down to 2. Mr. Alcaraz: Alright. We're going to move forward. Ms. Hippen? Ms. Hippen: I have to concur with Mr. Mauch. The neighborhood doesn't support it, but our zoning doesn't support it, and the question was asked who's going to live there, that can be immaterial, but I look at this is going to be a home that will have no front yard, and that's the point of our zoning codes. And that is the reason why I don't support it. Mr. Alcaraz: Alright. Thank you. Again, we have in front of us a motion for the variance to be denied, seconded by Mr. Cromwell, and at this time, I'm going to move forward unless there's any other discussion. Are there any abstentions? Unknown Female: Yes. I'm abstaining from this vote. Thank you. Madam Clerk: And there's a letter on file. Packet Pg. 283 5.L.a Mr. Alcaraz: All right, Madam Clerk, we're ready to vote. Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Madam Clerk: Vote is open. Mr. Alcaraz: The motion was to deny. Go ahead. Madam Clerk: By a vote of 6 to 3 the recommendation for item #2 is denied with one abstention. Mr. Alcaraz: Thank you. Madam Clerk, the next agenda item #8. Applicant for item #8, please come forward. Hello again. State your name for the record. Vote Tally AYE 6 NAY 3 ABS 1 ABSENT 1 Alcaraz AYE Anderson NAY Byler ABS Cromwell AYE Coston NAY Cuellar AYE Estaris X Hippen AYE Mauch AYE Parks AYE Plumlee NAY CONDITIONS 1. When developed, the residential dwelling shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted concept plan entitled, "Exhibit of Lot 15-A Subdivision of Lots 15 & 16 Belamy Manor B-1 & Parcel B”", dated April 19, 2024, and prepared by Hayden Frye and Associates, Inc. Land Surveyors, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on ﬁle with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 2. When developed, the residential dwelling shall substantially adhere in appearance, size and materials to the rendering entitled, "Kroll Enterprise Model 900" dated March 6, 2024, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on ﬁle with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Packet Pg. 284 5.L.a 3. The applicant shall resubdivide the property to remove the subdivision note that prohibited Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the this property from being a residential building site. 4. The property shall not be developed unless a private utility easement(s) is established to provide utility services to this property. Packet Pg. 285 Packet Pg. 286 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Packet Pg. 287 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Packet Pg. 288 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Packet Pg. 289 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Packet Pg. 290 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Packet Pg. 291 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Packet Pg. 292 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the 5.L.a From: Dan Wagoner To: Marchelle L. Coleman Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Subject: Planning commission meeting 8/14/24 Date: Monday, August 12, 2024 5:53:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms Coleman, As 36-year residents of the Stratford Green neighborhood, my wife and I have concerns over the building of another house with "frontage" on Autumn Harvest Drive. Our understanding of the reason for this matter coming before the planning commission is to get a variance for "lot width and street line frontage". What we do not know is why the matter is coming before the commission a second time. Our objection is related to the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers in the s-curve where this property fronts on Autumn Harvest Drive. Undoubtedly, if this house is built, there will be additional cars parked on the street in the s-curve. With that additional congestion, cars coming out of the driveway, or parked on the street will be in danger of striking or being struck by others on the street. At the previous meeting we were surprised to learn that a judge had issued a ruling that allowed an easement across the property at 989 Autumn Harvest Drive, giving the property in question access to Autumn Harvest Drive causing harm to the owner of 989. That, however, does not answer the question as to the street line frontage not meeting code. I hope that the Commission will recant their previous recommendation for approval. Thank you, Dan and Susan Wagoner 967 Autumn Harvest Dr, Virginia Beach, VA 23464 Packet Pg. 293 5.L.a From: Marchelle L. Coleman To: Marchelle L. Coleman Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Subject: RE: Mary Lively’s property variance application Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 4:21:44 PM From: Cathy Perry <cjp6224@yahoo.com> Date: August 2, 2024 at 1:43:18 PM EDT To: nestaris@vbgov.com Subject: Mary Lively’s property variance application Dear Ms Estaris, I am writing concerning the variance application requested by Mary Lively that was sent back to the planning commission for a Aug 14 hearing. My property abuts this property and I have concerns about what this driveway and subsequent construction will do to the value of my property and to the safety of the road to which it will connect. A little background: This dispute has been going on for years. When Mrs Conboy lived on the property that the potential driveway will cross, intimidation was used to convince her to cooperate. First, a police office talked to her . Next a developer told her that she should not fight it because he had lots of influence down town and could get anything he wanted done. I understand that this is hearsay, but Mrs Convoy told me these things just after they happened. She and her family spent thousands to prevent her property from being taken. Finally she sold and went to live in a senior living home. ( Ironically, her son, Mark Convoy, originally purchased the lot so he could build a road to connect to his family property. He developed Stratford Green on this property. That is the same road to which Lively wants to connect, not by purchasing the property, but taking it by force for her own profit.) The next family that bought the Conboy property was led to believe that the application would be denied. No lawyer was hired, thinking the commission would protect their right to keep their property. That did not happen, thanks to a judge’s ruling to which none of us had any prior knowledge. Feeling frustrated and betrayed by their city, the second family sold their property and moved. In addition to what I see as an injustice, I am very concerned about the addition of a driveway on a S shaped curve. I try to be very careful leaving my home because that part of the curve is difficult to see around. I fear a head on collision is more probable with the addition of a driveway in that location. Lastly, my greatest fear is that Mrs Lively will attempt to put more than one house Packet Pg. 294 5.L.a on the property, directly affecting the appearance of my neighborhood. The plan Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the submitted to the planning commission shows one house on the far right side of the property. Why was it not centered more? Can she connect another driveway to access a second home? This is very important to clarify. In conclusion, I do not wish to prevent anyone from being able to sell or improve their property. But, when this is done at the expense of others, it is wrong! Mrs Lively had several opportunities to sell her property and refused. Putting a permanent driveway on someone else’s property, in my opinion, is stealing! Respectfully, Cathy Perry Sent from my iPad Packet Pg. 295 Packet Pg. 296 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the Packet Pg. 297 5.L.a Attachment: 01_ARF Package for Mary Lively (4202 : Mary Lively (Applicant & Property Owner) Subdivision Variance (Section 4.4(b) of the TIMOTHY PAASCH / OCEAN RESCUE SERVICE INC FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE RE LOW-SPEED VEHICLE STORAGE AT 1804 ARCTIC AVENUE DISTRICT 6 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of . APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Manager City Attorney’s Office Packet Pg. 298 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: TIMOTHY PAASCH [Applicant] OCEAN RESCUE SERVICE INC [Property Owner] Special Exception for Alternative Compliance (Low-speed Vehicle Storage) for the property located at 1804 Arctic Avenue (GPIN 24270783600000). COUNCIL DISTRICT 6 (Remick) MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024  Background: Currently, Low-speed Vehicle dealerships and rental businesses deliver their vehicles by trailering them to customers in the Resort Area. The business model presented in this application is to have a satellite location for the storage of Low- speed Vehicles. These vehicles will be delivered directly to customers in the Resort Area by an employee that would drive the Low-speed Vehicle to the renter and then return storage facility. The renter will then be responsible for returning the vehicle to the subject facility. Low-speed Vehicles are street-legal vehicles similar in size and appearance to a typical golf cart. These vehicles are required by law to be equipped with headlights, brake lights, taillights, reflex reflectors, an emergency or parking brake, an externally mounted rearview mirror, an internally mounted rearview mirror, a windshield, one or more windshield wipers, a speedometer, an odometer, braking for each wheel, a safety belt system, and a vehicle identification number. Additionally, Low-speed Vehicles are not permitted to be operated on public roadways where the maximum speed limit exceeds 35 miles per hour. This application will have no impact on the ability of tourists nor residents to operate Low-speed Vehicles within the Resort Area. This application only pertains to a facility to store the Low-speed Vehicles in the Resort Area, which is currently not a permitted within the Oceanfront Resort District Form-based Code.  Considerations: In Staff’s opinion and the Planning Commission concurred, this proposed use is not compatible with the adopted long-range goals nor policies of the Resort Area. However, as the applicant has agreed that the use of this facility will be temporary while major redevelopment projects in the Central Beach are underway, such as Atlantic Park and Right-of-Way improvements, Staff is amenable to this proposal as an interim use. Further details pertaining to the application, as well as Staff’s evaluation, are provided in the attached Staff Report. There is no known opposition to this request. Packet Pg. 299 5.L.a Timothy Paasch Page 2 of 2 Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative  Recommendation: On August 14, 2024, the Planning Commission passed a motion to recommend approval of this request by a vote of 10 to 0. 1. This Alternative Compliance shall expire on December 31st, 2029 (12/31/2029). To continue the use of the Low-speed Vehicle Storage Facility after such expiration, a new Alternative Compliance shall be obtained if still required by the applicable code sections. 2. The total number of Low-speed Vehicles permitted to be stored at this facility, addressed 1804 Arctic Avenue, shall be 20. 3. No outdoor storage of Low-speed Vehicles is permitted on this property – All vehicles must be stored within the facility, addressed 1804 Arctic Avenue, located on the property. 4. A sticker or plaque, as approved by the Zoning Administrator or their designee, shall be placed within the Low-speed Vehicles where such sticker or plaque will be seen and read by a reasonably observant customer is required. Such sign shall contain the following information at a minimum: a. Operators must be sixteen (16) years or older to operate. b. Valid driver's license is required of all customers. c. Customers must be familiar with and obey traffic laws. Violations will be prosecuted by police. d. Operation is prohibited on the boardwalk and the adjacent grassy area and bicycle path, oceanfront parks and plazas, the beach, and all sidewalks. 5. Prior to the operation of the Low-speed Vehicle establishment an approved business license for this address must be obtained from the Commissioner of the Revenue’s Office.  Attachments: Staff Report and Disclosure Statements Location Map Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing Letter(s) of Support (55) Recommended Action: Staff recommends Approval. Planning Commission recommends Approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: Packet Pg. 300 5.L.a Agenda Item 11 Applicant: Timothy Paasch Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Property Owner: Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. Planning Commission Public Hearing: August 14, 2024 City Council District: District 6 (Remick) Project Details Request Alternative Compliance (Low-speed Vehicle Storage) Staﬀ Recommendation Approval Staﬀ Planner Garek Hall Hannigan Location 1804 Arctic Avenue GPIN 242707836 Site Size 4,620 square feet AICUZ 65-70 dB DNL; Sub-Area 1 Watershed Atlantic Ocean Existing Land Use and Zoning District Warehouse, former Lifesaving Service building / OR Oceanfront Resort Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Districts North Single-family dwellings / OR Oceanfront Resort South 18th Street Tow yard, storage yard / OR Oceanfront Resort East Arctic Avenue Atlantic Park / OR Oceanfront Resort West Commercial building / OR Oceanfront Resort Timothy Paasch Agenda Item 11 page 1 of 12 Packet Pg. 301 5.L.a Background & Summary of Proposal Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative • The applicant is requesting a Special Exception of Alternative Compliance for Low-speed Vehicle Storage as the use is not expressly listed in the use table of the Oceanfront Resort District Form-Based Code. The proposed rental facility will occupy an existing warehouse space at 1804 Arctic Avenue. • This request is in response to a Notice of Violation issued on May 3, 2024, for the illegal operation of a Low- speed Vehicle Rental facility on site. • While the Oceanfront Resort District Form-based Code does not expressly list the Low-speed Vehicle Storage as a permitted use within the Resort Area, the actual operation (i.e., driving) of Low-speed Vehicles is permitted within the Resort Area. • The applicant proposes to operate a Low-speed Vehicle Storage facility on site. Low-speed Vehicles are street-legal vehicles similar in size and appearance to a typical golf-cart. These vehicles are required by law to be equipped with headlights, brake lights, taillights, reﬂex reﬂectors, an emergency or parking brake, an externally mounted rearview mirror, an internally mounted rearview mirror, a windshield, one or more windshield wipers, a speedometer, an odometer, braking for each wheel, a safety belt system, and a vehicle identiﬁcation number. Additionally, Low-speed Vehicles are not permitted to be operated on public roadways where the maximum speed limit exceeds 35 miles per hour. • Every public roadway in the Resort Area features a speed limit of 35 miles per hour or less; there are no current restrictions as to what roadways these vehicles could operate. • Per Section 7-10 of the City Code, operation of a Low-speed Vehicle is prohibited on the boardwalk and the adjacent grassy area and bicycle path, oceanfront parks and plazas, the beach, and all sidewalks. • Currently, dealerships and rental businesses deliver Low-speed Vehicles by trailering them to customers in the Resort Area. The business model presented in this application is to have a satellite location for the storage of Low-speed Vehicles. These vehicles will be delivered directly to customers in the Resort Area by an employee that would drive the Low-speed Vehicle to the renter and then return storage facility. The renter will then be responsible for returning the vehicle to the subject facility. • This facility will be used to store Low-speed Vehicles – The rental of Low-speed Vehicles is not permitted on this site. The applicant’s business model involves delivering the Low-speed Vehicles to renters directly. Timothy Paasch Agenda Item 11 page 2 of 12 Packet Pg. 302 5.L.a Zoning History Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative # Request STC (Atlantic Park) Approved 12/01/2020 STC (Atlantic Park) Approved 08/17/2021 1 ALT (Atlantic Park) Approved 08/17/2021 ALT (Atlantic Park) Approved 09/20/2022 MDC (Atlantic Park) Approved 09/20/2022 STR Approved 06/09/2020 2 STR Approved 01/18/2022 3 CUP (Automobile Museum) Approved 12/07/2010 Application Types CUP: Conditional Use Permit MDP: Modiﬁcation of Proﬀers SVR: Subdivision Variance REZ: Rezoning NON: Nonconforming Use LUP: Land Use Plan CRZ: Conditional Rezoning STC: Street Closure STR: Short Term Rental MDC: Modiﬁcation of FVR: Floodplain Variance Conditions ALT: Alternative Compliance Evaluation & Recommendation In Staﬀ’s opinion, this proposed use is not compatible with the adopted long-range goals and policies of the Resort Area. However, as the applicant has agreed that the use of this facility will be temporary while major redevelopment projects in the Central Beach are underway, such as Atlantic Park and Right-of-Way improvements. The applicant is amenable to a condition, Condition 1, which nulliﬁes this Alternative Compliance at the end of the year 2029, Staﬀ is agreeable that the use of Low-speed Vehicle Storage is acceptable on a temporary basis while a deeper analysis regarding the greater impacts of Low-speed Vehicles in the Resort Area is had. The Oceanfront Resort District Form-Based Code (ORDFBC) provides ﬂexibility through the Special Exception of Alternative Compliance process to accommodate unique uses and development forms that contribute to the character and ambiance envisioned in the Resort Area Strategic Action Plan (RASAP), per Sec. 7.3 of the ORDFBC. The proposed use of “Low-speed Vehicle Storage” facility is not expressly listed within the Permitted Use Table, per Sec. 5.2 of the ORDFBC, and necessitates the Alternative Compliance request. The prevalence of Low-speed Vehicles in the Resort Area has increased as several dealerships for these vehicles have begun operating in the city, as well as the growing number of electric vehicle charging stations at hotels. Timothy Paasch Agenda Item 11 page 3 of 12 Packet Pg. 303 5.L.a The growing number of Low-speed Vehicles has presented challenges for Resort Management, Parking Management, and Police, including illegal operation of these vehicles on sidewalks and the Boardwalk, as well Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative as the illegal parking of the vehicles over pedestrian walkways and greenways. The outcome of this application will not prohibit the use of Low-speed Vehicles in the Resort Area, nor will it mitigate or solve any issues pertaining to their use in the Resort Area. With these factors in mind, the Oceanfront Resort District provides ‘Review Standards’ for applications for Alternative Compliance, noting that the City Council “shall consider the extent to which the proposed development, taken as a whole,” satisﬁes these standards. Each of these standards is listed below, with a Staﬀ comment pertaining to the degree to which the proposal does or does not meet each. • Promotes modes of transportation other than the automobile, including walking, biking, and transit. Staﬀ Comments: The proposal for a storage facility dedicated to personal Low-speed Vehicle rentals does not promote a mode of transportation other than the automobile as Low-speed Vehicles are regulated and utilized in a manner virtually identical to those of traditional automobiles. As Low-speed Vehicles are bound to the same constraints of automobiles, they do not work towards reducing traﬃc and congestion nor parking demand in the Resort Area. While micro-transit is a recommendation of the Resort Area Mobility Plan (RAMP), the method of compatible micro-transit is not personal vehicle rentals but rather shared alternative mobility devices such as e-scooters and e-bikes, or larger format rideshares such as Uber or Lyft services (RAMP Pg. 48-49). Further, the ViBe Creative District Connectivity Plan (VCD CP) emphasizes the continuance of the district as being pedestrian focused (VCD CP Pg. 2): The continuance of auto-centric uses and uses which rely on automobiles is antithetical to the goals and visions of the ViBe district as well as the Resort Area as a whole. As Low-speed Vehicles function and behave no diﬀerently than automobiles, this proposed use to store Low-speed Vehicles does nothing to promote modes of transportation other than the automobile and would not be consistent with the recommendations of the RASAP or RAMP, nor the intent of the ViBe district. • Creates a built environment that is in scale with pedestrian-oriented activities and provides visual interest and orientation for pedestrians. Staﬀ Comments: The requested Low-speed Vehicle storage facility use does not alter the existing built environment as no new additions/buildings nor site improvements are being proposed as part of this request. The long-term vision for streetscape improvements in and around the ViBe district includes inﬁlling existing sidewalk gaps along Arctic Avenue (VCD CP Pg. 8) and improving the roadway infrastructure, sidewalk infrastructure, and providing non-metered on-street spaces along 18th Street (VCD CP Pg. 6-7). While the by-right reuse of structures would not require the improvement of adjacent sidewalks, it is the expectation that projects that require Alternative Compliance should further “the stated goals and objectives of the Resort Area Strategic Action Plan” (ORDFBC Sec. 7.3.3[A[1]]). Additionally, this site is adjacent to the Atlantic Park site, speciﬁcally the Surf Park portion of the project, which is anticipated to bolster and enliven pedestrianism within the Central Beach portion of the Resort Area. However, as this proposal is envisioned as a temporary use of the property and given the right-of-way improvements along Arctic Avenue and 18th Street which would disrupt any sidewalk improvements made at this property, Staﬀ is agreeable that the lack of pedestrian-oriented activity is understandable for the time being. Timothy Paasch Agenda Item 11 page 4 of 12 Packet Pg. 304 5.L.a • Contributes to a mix of uses in the area that are compatible with each other and work together to create a memorable and successful place. Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Staﬀ Comments: The proposed Low-speed Vehicle storage facility use is not an “active use” in that it does not generate nor promote high pedestrianism activity between itself or adjacent uses. Further, auto-oriented uses are not compatible with the Oceanfront Resort District as vehicle uses are intentionally excluded from the Permitted Use Table in order to shift the district towards being more pedestrian friendly. Given these factors, Staﬀ does not ﬁnd that a Low-speed Vehicle storage facility would be a long-term compatible use within the Resort Area under the current framework provided by the long-range plans. However, Staﬀ does believe that as a temporary use the storage facility would be an appropriate reuse of the existing nonconforming building. • Is consistent with the intent of the regulations applicable to the street frontage in which it is located, as set forth in Sec. 2.1 of this code. Staﬀ Comments: The proposed Low-speed Vehicle rental use is to be conducted on the corner of Arctic Avenue and 18th Street. Both of the streets are the Beach Frontage Type. The Beach Frontage Type is intended to serve as a “quieter frontage with high pedestrian activity” and typically feature low- to medium-density residential and neighborhood-oriented uses (ORDFBC Sec. 2.1). There is a focus on pedestrian oriented uses along this Street Frontage Type. The proposed use is not necessarily consistent nor inconsistent with the intent of the associated Street Frontage Type: While the use does activate the surrounding neighboring properties nor promote interaction between neighbors, it also does not draw in unnecessarily large and disruptive activities as customers are not going to the physical facility to rent the Low-speed Vehicles. While Staﬀ does not believe any future automobile/vehicle rental uses would be appropriate on any Street Frontage Type within the ViBe Creative District, given its goal of becoming a walkable hub (VCD CP Pg. 2), this use is temporary in nature and would be appropriate in maintaining the status quo of the existing building in the interim. • Is physically and functionally integrated with the built environment in which it is located. Staﬀ Comments: Physically, there are no site changes nor construction proposed with this request for a Low-speed Vehicle storage facility. Given this is a temporary use no site changes are being requested as part of this application. • Advances the goals and objectives of the parking strategy for the District. Staﬀ Comments: The proposal of introducing Low-speed Vehicle rentals to the Oceanfront creates a double-parked eﬀect, wherein visitors must ﬁrst park their personal vehicle and then must ﬁnd another parking accommodation for their rented vehicle, essentially doubling the parking required for one user. The Resort Area does not diﬀerentiate Low-speed Vehicle parking from typical automotive parking, and there is not currently any “Low-speed Vehicle parking only” areas within the Resort Area, leading to this use introducing a mobility type that actively works towards increasing the overall need for parking in the Resort Area. • The City Council shall also consider the potential impacts of the proposed deviation on surrounding properties and the extent to which any adverse impacts from such deviation can be mitigated. Staﬀ Comments: Staﬀ does not believe that the reuse of the existing vacant building on the site as a storage facility for Low-speed Vehicles will have any detrimental impacts to the surrounding properties. The proposed use will be beneﬁcial for the area as it ensures the continued use of the Lifesaving Service Building, which itself has become a landmark for residents in the Resort Area. While there are Timothy Paasch Agenda Item 11 page 5 of 12 Packet Pg. 305 5.L.a larger impacts of the general proliferation of Low-speed Vehicles within the Resort Area, this use does not immediately impact whether these vehicles will be in the Resort. Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative The ViBe District nonproﬁt board wrote a letter of support for the proposed Low-speed Vehicle storage facility use noting that any concerns with pedestrian safety or illegal parking and use of the vehicles could be mitigated by the rental company via educational signage on each vehicle. In addition, Staﬀ has received 23 letters of support from surrounding businesses and residents. Ultimately, Staﬀ generally does not support Low-speed Vehicle storage nor rental business in the Resort Area given the contradiction between the use and the adopted policies of the Resort Area Strategic Action Plan. Having evaluated the proposal against the review criteria adopted in the Form-based Code, Staﬀ was unable to ﬁnd the proposal in conformance with the aforementioned criteria. However, as an interim use of the property Staﬀ believes this proposal is acceptable. In acknowledging that redevelopment is imminent in the Central Beach, that there is an abundance of support for the proposal, and that the use is temporary in nature, Staﬀ is able to support the application with the conditions listed below. Recommended Conditions 1. This Alternative Compliance shall expire on December 31st, 2029 (12/31/2029). To continue the use of the Low-speed Vehicle Storage Facility after such expiration, a new Alternative Compliance shall be obtained if still required by the applicable code sections. 2. The total number of Low-speed Vehicles permitted to be stored at this facility, addressed 1804 Arctic Avenue, shall be 20. 3. No outdoor storage of Low-speed Vehicles is permitted on this property – All vehicles must be stored within the facility, addressed 1804 Arctic Avenue, located on the property. 4. A sticker or plaque, as approved by the Zoning Administrator or their designee, shall be placed within the Low-speed Vehicles where such sticker or plaque will be seen and read by a reasonably observant customer is required. Such sign shall contain the following information at a minimum: a. Operators must be sixteen (16) years or older to operate. b. Valid driver's license is required of all customers. c. Customers must be familiar with and obey traﬃc laws. Violations will be prosecuted by police. d. Operation is prohibited on the boardwalk and the adjacent grassy area and bicycle path, oceanfront parks and plazas, the beach, and all sidewalks. 5. Prior to the operation of the Low-speed Vehicle establishment an approved business license for this address must be obtained from the Commissioner of the Revenue’s Oﬃce. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Timothy Paasch Agenda Item 11 page 6 of 12 Packet Pg. 306 5.L.a Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Certiﬁcate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this application are valid. Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Oﬃce within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations This project falls within the Resort Area SGA and the Short Term Rental Overlay and ViBe Creative District. Low- speed Vehicles are considered a form of micro-transit to be utilized as shared-ride for drop oﬀ and pick up, however not for private use (RAMP Pg. 48). Residents desire better parking and pedestrian management to make parking safer and more connected (RASAP Pg. 79). In the Resort Area Strategic Action Plan, mobility planning calls to “divert traﬃc out of the neighborhoods” and states shared mobility devices “…can pose challenges to vehicular safety and curbside management” (RASAP Pg. 21). The ViBe District, which this property falls within, is deemed “an ideal walkable scale, with most destinations under a 10 minute walk from one another” (p.3, ViBe Connectivity Plan). Natural & Cultural Resources Impacts The site is located in the Atlantic Ocean watershed. Public Utility Impacts Water and Sewer The site connects to City sewer and water. Public Outreach Information Planning Commission • The applicant reported that they met with the surrounding property owners, and no objections were raised. 23 letters of support have been received by Staﬀ. • As required by the Zoning Ordinance, the public notice sign(s) was placed on the property on July 15, 2024. • As required by State Code, this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot on Wednesdays, July 31, 2024 and August 7, 2024. • As required by City Code, the adjacent property owners were notiﬁed regarding the request and the date of the Planning Commission public hearing on July 29, 2024. • This Staﬀ report, as well as all reports for this Planning Commission’s meeting, was posted on the Commission’s webpage of virginiabeach.gov/pc on August 8, 2024. Timothy Paasch Agenda Item 11 page 7 of 12 Packet Pg. 307 5.L.a City Council • As required by City Code, this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot on Tuesdays, September 3, Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative 2024 and September 10, 2024. • As required by City Code, the adjacent property owners were notiﬁed regarding both the request and the date of the City Council’s public hearing on August 30, 2024. • The City Clerk’s Oﬃce posted the materials associated with the application on the City Council website of https://clerk.virginiabeach.gov/city-council on September 13, 2024. Timothy Paasch Agenda Item 11 page 8 of 12 Packet Pg. 308 Site Survey Timothy Paasch Agenda Item 11 page 9 of 12 Packet Pg. 309 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Site Photos Timothy Paasch Agenda Item 11 page 10 of 12 Packet Pg. 310 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Site Photos Timothy Paasch Agenda Item 11 page 11 of 12 Packet Pg. 311 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative 5.L.a Next Steps Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative • Upon receiving a recommendation from Planning Commission, this request will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing. Staﬀ will inform the applicant and/or their representative of the date of the hearing in the upcoming days. • Following City Council’s decision, the applicant will receive a decision letter from Staﬀ. • Once the conditions of approval are in place and/or completed, the applicant must contact the Zoning Division of the Planning Department to obtain veriﬁcation that the conditions have been met. Contact the Zoning Division at 757-385-8074. • If the request requires land disturbance and/or a subdivision of property, please contact the Development Services Center (DSC) to discuss next steps for site plan/plat review. Contact the DSC at 757-385-4621 or the Development Liaison Team at 757-385-5692. • Please note that further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Certiﬁcate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this application are valid. • The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Oﬃce within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Timothy Paasch Agenda Item 11 page 12 of 12 Packet Pg. 312 Packet Pg. 313 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 314 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative X 9/3/2024 Garek Hall Hannigan Packet Pg. 315 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 316 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 317 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 318 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 319 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue OR enue OR c Av Arcti OR Str eet 18th OR nue S tr eet c Ave 18th Arcti OR OR Site Property Polygons Zoning Building Timothy Paasch 1804 Arctic Ave μ Feet Packet Pg. 320 0 12.525 50 75 100 125 150 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Virginia Beach Planning Commission August 14, 2024 Public Meeting Item #11 Timothy Paasch Recommendation: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Discussion Ms. Cuellar: Thank you very much. So then our last item will be agenda item #11, Timothy Paasch. Mr. Paasch: Good afternoon commissioners, Tim Paasch. I'm looking to request to operate low speed vehicle storage business, and I agree with all staff's recommendations. Ms. Cuellar: Thank you very much. We appreciate that. Is there any opposition to this item being placed on the consent agenda? Hearing none, I've asked Commissioner Plumlee to read this into the record. Mr. Plumlee: The applicant is seeking to have permitted a golf cart rental facility at 1804 Arctic Avenue. Well, there were some reservations that staff had regarding this facility. The applicant had agreed that this will be on a limited basis for five years as one of the conditions, and therefore, with that limitation, the staff was willing to recommend approval of this. Based upon that there was no objection noted to us, and therefore, it was appropriate to place this item on the consent agenda. Ms. Cuellar: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, that was the last item on the consent agenda. The Planning Commission will now place four items on the consent agenda. Items #1, 4, 7, and 11. Mr. Alcaraz: Thank you, Vice Chair. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as read by the Vice Chair? Motion by Mr. Plumlee, and second by Ms. Hippen. Packet Pg. 321 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Madam Clerk: The vote is now open. By a vote of 10 to 0, consent agenda items #1,4, 7, and 11 have been recommended for approval. Mr. Alcaraz: All right, thank you. Those items that were approved, you can get with your planning representative, and they'll tell you when you'll be seen at City Council. Thank you for coming. Vote Tally AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Alcaraz AYE Anderson AYE Byler AYE Cromwell AYE Coston AYE Cuellar AYE Estaris X Hippen AYE Mauch AYE Parks AYE Plumlee AYE CONDITIONS 1. This Alternative Compliance shall expire on December 31st, 2029 (12/31/2029). To continue the use of the Low-speed Vehicle Storage Facility after such expiration, a new Alternative Compliance shall be obtained if still required by the applicable code sections. 2. The total number of Low-speed Vehicles permitted to be stored at this facility, addressed 1804 Arctic Avenue, shall be 20. 3. No outdoor storage of Low-speed Vehicles is permitted on this property – All vehicles must be stored within the facility, addressed 1804 Arctic Avenue, located on the property. 4. A sticker or plaque, as approved by the Zoning Administrator or their designee, shall be placed within the Low-speed Vehicles where such sticker or plaque will be seen and read by a reasonably observant customer is required. Such sign shall contain the following information at a minimum: a. Operators must be sixteen (16) years or older to operate. b. Valid driver's license is required of all customers. c. Customers must be familiar with and obey traffic laws. Violations will be prosecuted by police. Packet Pg. 322 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative d. Operation is prohibited on the boardwalk and the adjacent grassy area and bicycle path, oceanfront parks and plazas, the beach, and all sidewalks. 5. Prior to the operation of the Low-speed Vehicle establishment an approved business license for this address must be obtained from the Commissioner of the Revenue’s Office. Packet Pg. 323 Packet Pg. 324 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 325 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 326 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 327 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 328 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 329 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 330 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 331 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 332 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 333 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 334 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 335 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 336 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 337 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 338 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 339 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 340 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 341 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 342 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 343 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 344 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 345 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 346 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 347 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 348 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 349 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 350 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 351 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 352 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 353 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 354 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 355 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 356 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 357 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 358 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 359 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 360 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 361 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 362 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 363 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 364 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 365 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 366 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 367 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 368 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 369 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 370 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 371 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 372 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 373 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 374 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 375 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 376 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 377 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 378 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 379 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 380 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 381 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 382 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 383 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 384 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 385 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 386 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative Packet Pg. 387 5.L.a Attachment: 07_ARF Package for Timothy Paasch (4208 : Timothy Paasch (Applicant) Ocean Rescue Service, Inc. (Property Owner) Alternative GORDON R. CRENSHAW & HANNAH I. CRENSHAW FOR A STREET CLOSURE RE APPROXIMATELY 6,327 SQUARE FEET OF AN UNIMPROVED PORTION OF WINDSOR ROAD ADJACENT TO 1217 NORTH BAY SHORE DRIVE DISTRICT 6 (DEFERRED FROM AUGUST 13, 2024) Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of . APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Manager City Attorney’s Office Packet Pg. 388 Packet Pg. 389 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 390 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 391 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 392 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 393 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 394 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 395 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 396 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 397 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 398 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 399 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 400 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 401 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 402 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 403 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 404 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 405 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 406 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 407 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 408 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 409 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 410 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 411 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 412 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 413 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 414 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 415 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 416 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 417 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 418 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 419 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 420 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & Packet Pg. 421 5.L.a Attachment: 02_ARF_Crenshaw (4203 : Gordon R. Crenshaw & Hannah I. Crenshaw (Applicants) Street Closure Adjacent Addresses: 1217 & OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP CENTER, INC. FOR A MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RE INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS FROM 120 TO 124 AND TO EXPAND THE BUILDING BY 16,850 SQUARE FEET AT 4560 PRINCESS ANNE ROAD DISTRICT 1 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of . APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Manager City Attorney’s Office Packet Pg. 422 5.L.a Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP CENTER, INC [Applicant & Property Owner] Modification of Conditions to a Conditional Use Permit for the property located a 4560 Princess Anne Road (GPIN 1476439090). COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 (Hutcheson) MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024  Background: The applicant is seeking a Modification of Conditions to expand an existing nursing care and assisted living facility by 16,850 square feet increasing the facility from 87,195 square feet to 104,045 square feet. The facility currently has 120 units and will have 124 units following this expansion. A Conditional Use Permit for a Nursing Home was approved on this site by City Council on November 12, 1996. Previous conditions of approval include the number of beds in the facility, which are capped at 120, and building design and site layout as exhibited in plans dated October 7, 1996. The applicant is seeking modification to the three conditions related to the maximum number of beds, the building design, and the site layout. The proposed building expansion will be located on the southern elevation. A new wing will be constructed that will wrap from a projecting wing on the west elevation to the opposite side on the east elevation. This will create two interior courtyards. It will also require realignment of the existing sidewalk and road that curves around this side of the building. The addition will match the same design, materials, height, and color of the existing facility, and will provide additional space for new private and semi-private suites.  Considerations: The facility was first established in this community in 1996 and has provided senior care and living for almost 30 years. Our Lady of Perpetual Help is adjacent to a residential portion of the Timberlake Land Use Plan, is near residential areas of the Brenneman Farm Land Use Plan, and is immediately adjacent to Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School. Housing for seniors and nursing care facilities are uses that are compatible with residential neighborhoods found in the city’s Suburban Area. In addition to the critical services it provides, Our Lady of Perpetual Help contributes to an overall sense of community and place. The proposed addition is well proportioned to the existing structure and uses the same design and quality building materials as the existing building. Though the building will increase in size, the overall increase in the number of beds is nominal and will enable the facility to continue providing care with increased privacy for residents. Parking will continue to be met on site. Packet Pg. 423 5.L.a Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Page 2 of 2 Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & Further details pertaining to the application, as well as Staff’s evaluation, are provided in the attached Staff Report. There is no known opposition to this request.  Recommendation: On August 14, 2024, the Planning Commission passed a motion to recommend approval of this item on the Consent Agenda, by a recorded vote of 10-0. 1. Condition 1 of the 1996 Conditional Use Permit is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: This Conditional Use Permit is approved for a 124-bed nursing home/special care/assisted living facility. 2. Condition 2 of the 1996 Conditional Use Permit is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the concept layout entitled “Our Lady of Perpetual Help Proposed Parking Sketch,” prepared by Pennoni Associates Inc. and dated July 15, 2024. 3. The proposed addition to the south elevation shall be developed in substantial conformance with drawings entitled “Our Lady of Perpetual Help Renderings and Elevations,” prepared by Jones and Jones Associates and dated May 28, 2024. 4. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted at the time of final site plan review to address landscaping requirements for the revised parking areas on the property’s southern end. 5. Prior to site plan approval, relocation of the existing fire hydrant near the south side of the building, painting of curbs and signage identifying a fire lane, minimum requirements for a fire access road, and any other Fire Code requirements shall be met. 6. The remaining conditions of the 1996 Conditional Use Permit shall remain in effect.  Attachments: Staff Report and Disclosure Statements Location Map Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing Letters of Support (4) Recommended Action: Staff recommends Approval. Planning Commission recommends Approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: Packet Pg. 424 5.L.a Agenda Item 7 Applicant and Property Owner: Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & Planning Commission Public Hearing: August 14, 2024 City Council District: District 1 (Hutcheson) Project Details Request Modiﬁcation of Conditions (Expand Existing Nursing Care and Assisted Living Facility) Staﬀ Recommendation Approval Staﬀ Planner Elizabeth Nowak Location 4560 Princess Anne Road GPIN 1476439090 Site Size 8.6 acres AICUZ Less than 65 dB DNL Watershed Chesapeake Bay Existing Land Use and Zoning District Nursing Home / R-7.5 Residential Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Districts North Single-family dwellings and Retail / PD-H1 Planned Unit Development and O-2 Oﬃce South High School / R-10 Residential East High School / R-10 Residential West Princess Anne Road Single-family dwellings / R-7.5 Residential Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Agenda Item 7 page 1 of 14 Packet Pg. 425 5.L.a Background & Summary of Proposal Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & • The applicant is seeking a Modiﬁcation of Conditions to expand an existing nursing care and assisted living facility by 16,850 square feet increasing the facility from 87,195 square feet to 104,045 square feet. The facility currently has 120 units and will have 124 units following this expansion. • A Conditional Use Permit for a Nursing Home was approved on this site by City Council on November 12, 1996. Previous conditions of approval include the number of beds in the facility, which are capped at 120, and building design and site layout as exhibited in plans dated October 7, 1996. The applicant is seeking modiﬁcation to the three conditions related to the maximum number of beds, the building design, and the site layout. • The applicant currently employs 152 full and part time employees and provides assisted living and licensed nursing care. The existing 120 units are a mixture of private and semi-private rooms. 60 units are assisted living providing memory care for residents with a serious cognitive impairment; 30 units are assisted living providing residents with a high acuity level of care known as Extensive Assisted Living (EAL); and 30 units are licensed nursing home beds which provide services to residents with long-term nursing home needs. • The applicant recently received approval to purchase 34 nursing home beds through a Certiﬁcate of Public Need (COPN) process which will allow the applicant to provide short-term care to residents that will be reimbursed by Medicare and other secondary insurance. There are 30 existing beds used for Extensive Assisted Living (EAL) that will be eliminated. The new 34 beds will be used as private skilled beds. This results in an overall four bed increase. The change will result in a net increase of four beds in the facility. • The proposed addition will accommodate construction of 18 new private units to accommodate some of the new skilled nursing home beds. This is being done to eliminate as many semi-private units as possible to allow residents to have a private bathroom and to better adapt to a post-Covid-19 environment. • The proposed building expansion will be located on the southern elevation. A new wing will be constructed that will wrap from a projecting wing on the west elevation to the opposite side on the east elevation. This will create two interior courtyards. It will also require realignment of the existing sidewalk and road that curves around this side of the building. • The addition uses the same design as the existing building, including the height, a primary hipped roof, and gable dormers, and will use matching red brick veneer and windows. • The facility is currently served by 98 parking spaces. 26 spaces will be moved/removed as a result of the planned expansion and 19 replacement spaces are proposed, providing a total of 91 spaces for the facility. Section 235(c) requires one parking space for each independent living unit; one parking space for every two units in assisted living units; and one space for every three patient beds. There are 90 assisted living units and will be 34 nursing beds, requiring 45 spaces and 11 spaces respectively and a total of 56 required parking spaces. Even with the reduction from the current 98 spaces to 91 spaces, there will still be suﬃcient parking on site. Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Agenda Item 7 page 2 of 14 Packet Pg. 426 5.L.a Zoning History Map Key Request Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & No. MDC (Religious High School) Approved 05/28/2013 LUP Amendment Approved 06/23/1998 2 6 CUP (Religious High School) Approved 1 04/28/1992 REZ (PDH-1 to R-10 Residential) 3 Approved 04/28/1992 1 LUP Approved 03/10/1975 5 CUP (Religious Use) Approved 2 04/10/2012 LUP Approved 11/19/1981 3 CUP (Church) Approved 11/12/2002 CRZ (R-6 Residential to Conditional O-1) 4 Approved 08/03/1987 LUP Amendment Approved 06/23/1998 4 LUP Approved 03/10/1975 CUP (Nursing Home) Approved 5 11/12/1996 6 LUP Approved 11/19/1981 Application Types CUP: Conditional Use Permit MDP: Modiﬁcation of Proﬀers SVR: Subdivision Variance REZ: Rezoning NON: Nonconforming Use LUP: Land Use Plan CRZ: Conditional Rezoning STC: Street Closure STR: Short Term Rental MDC: Modiﬁcation of FVR: Floodplain Variance Conditions ALT: Alternative Compliance Evaluation & Recommendation In Staﬀ’s opinion, the proposed addition to Our Lady of Perpetual Help is acceptable. The facility was ﬁrst established in this community in 1996 and has provided senior care and living for almost 30 years. Our Lady of Perpetual Help is adjacent to a residential portion of the Timberlake Land Use Plan, is near residential areas of the Brenneman Farm Land Use Plan, and is immediately adjacent to Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School. Housing for seniors and nursing care facilities are uses that are compatible with residential neighborhoods found in the city’s Suburban Area. In addition to the critical services it provides, Our Lady of Perpetual Help contributes to an overall sense of community and place. The proposed addition is well proportioned to the existing structure and uses the same design and quality building materials as the existing building. Though the building will increase in size, the overall increase in the Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Agenda Item 7 page 3 of 14 Packet Pg. 427 5.L.a number of beds is nominal and will enable the facility to continue providing care with increased privacy for residents. The alterations to the existing driveway, which is designated as a ﬁre lane, and the park areas will have no adverse eﬀect on overall site conditions; the Fire Marshal’s oﬃce indicated that the new parking Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & spaces can be placed in this location provided the driveway remains a ﬁre lane. Condition 5 is recommended to address any outstanding ﬁre code regulations during site plan review. While there is an anticipated increase in the number of average daily trips with the planned expansion of the facility, Staﬀ notes that this calculation is based on square footage of the building, not the number of beds. This conservative estimation of increased trips is within the capacity of Princess Anne Road and Staﬀ believes the actual number of trips will be less than the analysis shows. In sum, Staﬀ recommends approval of this application subject to the following recommended conditions and exhibits included in the staﬀ report. Recommended Conditions 1. Condition 1 of the 1996 Conditional Use Permit is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: This Conditional Use Permit is approved for a 124-bed nursing home/special care/assisted living facility. 2. Condition 2 of the 1996 Conditional Use Permit is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the concept layout entitled “Our Lady of Perpetual Help Proposed Parking Sketch,” prepared by Pennoni Associates Inc. and dated July 15, 2024. 3. The proposed addition to the south elevation shall be developed in substantial conformance with drawings entitled “Our Lady of Perpetual Help Renderings and Elevations,” prepared by Jones and Jones Associates and dated May 28, 2024. 4. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted at the time of ﬁnal site plan review to address landscaping requirements for the revised parking areas on the property’s southern end. 5. Prior to site plan approval, relocation of the existing ﬁre hydrant near the south side of the building, painting of curbs and signage identifying a ﬁre lane, minimum requirements for a ﬁre access road, and any other Fire Code requirements shall be met. 6. The remaining conditions of the 1996 Conditional Use Permit shall remain in eﬀect. 1996 Conditions 1. This conditional use permit is approved for a 120-bed nursing home/special care/assisted living facility. 2. The facility shall be developed substantially in accordance with the site plan prepared by Collins & Kronstadt, dated 10/7/196, on ﬁle with the Department of Planning. Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Agenda Item 7 page 4 of 14 Packet Pg. 428 5.L.a 3. Landscaping shown on the site plan in the northwestern and northeastern corners of the site shall, at a minimum, comply with the provisions of Category I landscape screening, for the protection of abutting single-family dwellings. Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & 4. The facility shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the photo rendering on ﬁle with the Department of Planning, entitled “Our Lady of Perpetual Help, Virginia each, Virginia.” Materials shall consist primarily of brick, with wood and drivit accents, and white aluminum “storefront” solarium construction, as shown in the reference rendering and exhibited to the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. Free-standing signs shall be limited to one monument style sign, not more than eight (8) feet in height, utilizing materials, colors and design complementary to the nursing home structure. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Certiﬁcate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this application are valid. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Oﬃce within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations This project falls within the Suburban Area as deﬁned by the Comprehensive Plan. The primary guiding principle for the Suburban Area is to create and maintain Great Neighborhoods that seeks residential uses to maintain and create neighborhood stability by developing cohesively arranged structures and streetscapes by providing “site and building design that is visually interesting, encourages greater social interaction and provides memorable character” (p. 1-61). This project proposes an upgrade to established assisted living and nursing care, both in terms of medical care and in quality of life for residents. Natural & Cultural Resources Impacts The site is located in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. There are no known historic or cultural resources that will be aﬀected by this project. Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Agenda Item 7 page 5 of 14 Packet Pg. 429 5.L.a Traﬃc Impacts/Transportation Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & Traﬃc Counts Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traﬃc Existing Land Use 2 – 365 ADT Princess Anne Road 28,300 ADT1 32,000 ADT (LOS “D”) 1 4 Proposed Land Use 3 – 436 ADT 1 Average Daily Trips 2As deﬁned by an 3As deﬁned by a 4LOS = Level of 87,000 SF Assisted 104,000 SF Assisted Service Living Facility Living Facility Master Transportation Plan (MTP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Princess Anne Road in the vicinity of this application is considered a four-lane divided minor urban arterial. The MTP proposes a four-lane facility within a 120-foot right-of-way. No roadway CIP projects are slated for this area. Public Utility Impacts The property currently connects to City water and sanitary sewer. Public Outreach Information Planning Commission • The applicant reported that they met with the surrounding property owners, and no objections were raised. Three letters of support have been received by Staﬀ. • As required by the Zoning Ordinance, the public notice sign was placed on the property on July 15, 2024. • As required by State Code, this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot on Wednesdays, July 31, 2024 and August 7, 2024. • As required by City Code, the adjacent property owners were notiﬁed regarding the request and the date of the Planning Commission public hearing on July 29, 2024. • This Staﬀ report, as well as all reports for this Planning Commission’s meeting, was posted on the Commission’s webpage of virginiabeach.gov/pc on August 8, 2024. City Council • As required by City Code, this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot on Tuesdays, September 3, 2024 and September 10, 2024. • As required by City Code, the adjacent property owners were notiﬁed regarding both the request and the date of the City Council’s public hearing on August 30, 2024. Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Agenda Item 7 page 6 of 14 Packet Pg. 430 5.L.a • The City Clerk’s Oﬃce posted the materials associated with the application on the City Council website of https://clerk.virginiabeach.gov/city-council on September 13, 2024. Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Agenda Item 7 page 7 of 14 Packet Pg. 431 Proposed Site Layout Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Agenda Item 7 page 8 of 14 Packet Pg. 432 5.L.a Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & Proposed Elevation Plan Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Agenda Item 7 page 9 of 14 Packet Pg. 433 5.L.a Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & Site Photos Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Agenda Item 7 page 10 of 14 Packet Pg. 434 5.L.a Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & Site Photos Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Agenda Item 7 page 11 of 14 Packet Pg. 435 5.L.a Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & Disclosure Statement Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Agenda Item 7 page 12 of 14 Packet Pg. 436 5.L.a Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & Disclosure Statement Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Agenda Item 7 page 13 of 14 Packet Pg. 437 5.L.a Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & 5.L.a Next Steps Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & • Upon receiving a recommendation from Planning Commission, this request will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing. Staﬀ will inform the applicant and/or their representative of the date of the hearing in the upcoming days. • Following City Council’s decision, the applicant will receive a decision letter from Staﬀ. • Once the conditions of approval are in place and/or completed, the applicant must contact the Zoning Division of the Planning Department to obtain veriﬁcation that the conditions have been met. Contact the Zoning Division at 757-385-8074. • If the request requires land disturbance and/or a subdivision of property, please contact the Development Services Center (DSC) to discuss next steps for site plan/plat review. Contact the DSC at 757-385-4621 or the Development Liaison Team at 757-385-5692. • Please note that further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Certiﬁcate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this application are valid. • The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Oﬃce within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, Inc. Agenda Item 7 page 14 of 14 Packet Pg. 438 5.L.a PDH1 PDH1 PDH1 Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual PDH1 PDH1 PDH1 Pr O1 in ce ss An R7.5 d ne Ol Ro R7.5 ad sA es R10 inc Pr d R7.5 R10 oa eR nn PDH1 Site Property Polygons Zoning Building Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc 4560 Princess Anne Road μ Feet Packet Pg. 439 0 40 80 160 240 320 400 480 5.L.a Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & Virginia Beach Planning Commission August 14, 2024 Public Meeting Item #7 Our Lady of Perpetual Help Heath Center, Inc. Recommendation: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Discussion Ms. Cuellar: Thank you very much. Our next item is Agenda Item #7. Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center. If the applicant could please come forward. Ms. Frederick: Hello, good afternoon commissioners. My name is Lindsay Frederick. I'm with Alperin Law representing the applicant. We are seeking the modification of a conditional use permit. It was granted back in 1996, and we are in agreement with all the conditions placed forth. Ms. Cuellar: Thank you very much. We appreciate you being here today. Is there any opposition to this item being placed on the consent agenda? Hearing none, I've asked Commissioner Anderson to read this into the record. You may be seated. Mr. Anderson: The applicant is seeking a modification of conditions to expand an existing nursing care and assisted living facility by 16,850 square feet, increasing the facility from 87,195 square feet to 104,045 square feet. The facility currently has 120 units and will have 124 units following this expansion. A conditional use permit for a nursing home was approved on the site by City Council November 12, 1996. Previous conditions of approval include the number of beds in the facility, which are capped at 120, and building design, and site layout as existed in plans dated 1996. The applicant is seeking modification to the three conditions related to the maximum number of beds, the Packet Pg. 440 5.L.a Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & building design and the site layout. Hearing no objections, we put it on consent. Ms. Cuellar: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, that was the last item on the consent agenda. The Planning Commission will now place four items on the consent agenda. Items #1, 4, 7, and 11. Mr. Alcaraz: Thank you, Vice Chair. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as read by the Vice Chair? Motion by Mr. Plumlee, and second by Ms. Hippen. Madam Clerk: The vote is now open. By a vote of 10 to 0, consent agenda items #1,4, 7, and 11 have been recommended for approval. Mr. Alcaraz: All right, thank you. Those items that were approved, you can get with your planning representative, and they'll tell you when you'll be seen at City Council. Thank you for coming. Vote Tally AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Alcaraz AYE Anderson AYE Byler AYE Cromwell AYE Coston AYE Cuellar AYE Estaris X Hippen AYE Mauch AYE Parks AYE Plumlee AYE CONDITIONS 1. Condition 1 of the 1996 Conditional Use Permit is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: This Conditional Use Permit is approved for a 124-bed nursing home/special care/assisted living facility. Packet Pg. 441 5.L.a Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & 2. Condition 2 of the 1996 Conditional Use Permit is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the concept layout entitled “Our Lady of Perpetual Help Proposed Parking Sketch,” prepared by Pennoni Associates Inc. and dated July 15, 2024. 3. The proposed addition to the south elevation shall be developed in substantial conformance with drawings entitled “Our Lady of Perpetual Help Renderings and Elevations,” prepared by Jones and Jones Associates and dated May 28, 2024. 4. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted at the time of final site plan review to address landscaping requirements for the revised parking areas on the property’s southern end. 5. Prior to site plan approval, relocation of the existing fire hydrant near the south side of the building, painting of curbs and signage identifying a fire lane, minimum requirements for a fire access road, and any other Fire Code requirements shall be met. 6. The remaining conditions of the 1996 Conditional Use Permit shall remain in effect. Packet Pg. 442 Packet Pg. 443 5.L.a Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & Property Packet Pg. 444 5.L.a Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & Property Packet Pg. 445 5.L.a Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & Packet Pg. 446 5.L.a Attachment: 03_ARF Package for Our Lady of Perpetual Help Center, LLC (4204 : Our Lady of Perpetual Help Health Center, Inc (Applicant & DOGS REAL ESTATE, LLC FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RE RESIDENTIAL KENNEL AT 3449 ROBINSON ROAD DISTRICT 2 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of . APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Manager City Attorney’s Office Packet Pg. 447 5.L.a Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: DOGS REAL ESTATE, LLC [Applicant & Property Owner] Conditional Use Permit (Residential Kennel) for the property located at 3449 Robinson Road (GPIN 2412650161). COUNCIL DISTRICT 2 (Henley) MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024  Background: The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Kennel to use an existing 2,724-square-foot home at 3449 Robinson Road as a sanctuary for elderly and disabled dogs. The property is zoned AG-2 Agricultural and is approximately a half-acre. The applicant’s intention is to keep up to 12 dogs at the property as personal pets and will replace animals with newly adopted elderly or disabled dogs as ones pass away. No dogs will be kept outdoors and there will be no outdoor kennels. Aside from being allowed into the fenced backyard for play and to use the bathroom, the dogs will be kept indoors in the primary dwelling on the property.  Considerations: The proposed use is compatible with the overall character and goals for the Rural Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is approximately a half-acre and is separated from nearby residences by mature trees. As proposed, the dogs will be primarily kept indoors; none will be kenneled outside. The applicant is specifically requesting to house elderly and disabled dogs, which are likely to make less noise than as many young, active puppies and dogs. Further details pertaining to the application, as well as Staff’s evaluation, are provided in the attached Staff Report. There is no known opposition to this request.  Recommendation: On August 14, 2024, the Planning Commission passed a motion to recommend approval of this item on the Consent Agenda, by a recorded vote of 10-0. 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be limited to a maximum of twelve (12) dogs, inclusive of adult dogs and puppies. 2. All animal waste from the dogs shall be collected and disposed of in a lawful manner on a daily basis. 3. The applicant shall ensure that all dogs are properly vaccinated and immunized and are licensed through the City of Virginia Beach. Packet Pg. 448 5.L.a Dogs Real Estate, LLC Page 2 of 2 Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit 4. No dog shall be left outdoors unattended for long periods of time. As volunteered by the applicant, the dogs shall be inside of the single-family dwelling, a soundproof/insulated and air-conditioned building, for the majority of the day, with an exception to breaks for urination, defecation, and daily exercise. 5. No more than six (6) dogs shall be permitted to be outdoors at any one time and the dogs shall always remain under supervision of the caretaker. 6. All dogs, when outside, shall remain within the fenced-in area and shall not be a nuisance to any other property owners or residents. 7. There shall be no breeding of dogs on the site. 8. Day Care, Training, and Boarding services for monetary consumption are not permitted on this site.  Attachments: Staff Report and Disclosure Statements Location Map Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing Letters of Support (1) Petition Signatures of Support (11) Recommended Action: Staff recommends Approval. Planning Commission recommends Approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: Packet Pg. 449 5.L.a Agenda Item 4 Applicant and Property Owner: Dogs Real Estate, LLC Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Public Hearing: August 14, 2024 City Council District: District 2 (Henley) Project Details Request Conditional Use Permit (Residential Kennel) Staﬀ Recommendation Approval Staﬀ Planner Elizabeth Nowak Location 3449 Robinson Road GPIN 2412650161 Site Size 23,750 square feet AICUZ Less than 65 dB DNL Watershed Southern Rivers Existing Land Use and Zoning District Single-family dwelling, cultivated ﬁeld / AG-2 Agricultural Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Districts North Single-family dwelling / AG-2 Agricultural South Cultivated ﬁeld / AG-2 Agricultural East Robinson Road Cultivated ﬁeld / AG-2 Agricultural West Cultivated ﬁeld / AG-2 Agricultural Dog’s Real Estate, LLC Agenda Item 4 page 1 of 10 Packet Pg. 450 5.L.a Background & Summary of Proposal Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit • The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Kennel to use an existing 2,724-square- foot home at 3449 Robinson Road as a sanctuary for elderly and disabled dogs. The property is zoned AG-2 Agricultural and is approximately a half-acre. The rear yard is fenced. • The applicant is seeking to house up to twelve dogs at the property. The current resident of the property will continue to reside on the property. • No dogs will be kept outdoors, and there will be no outdoor kennels. Aside from being allowed into the fenced backyard for play and to use the bathroom, the dogs will be kept indoors in the primary dwelling on the property. • Dogs will sleep inside the home in either one of two large living rooms or the kitchen. Large and small dogs will be fed in separate areas to avoid issues with resource guarding or bullying. Spaces cordoned away from other dogs are available throughout the house to separate dogs with medical conditions that require physical separation from other animals. • The applicant has indicated that they are seeking status as a 501(c)(3) non-proﬁt organization to carry on their work rehabilitating and housing elderly and disabled dogs; however, the kennel will have no employees and the dogs will not be available for adoption as all the dogs will be adopted by the applicant. While there are no current plans to have volunteers, the applicant has indicated they may host volunteers at some point in the future to assist with care for the animals. • As the applicant is seeking to provide this care long term, they are seeking to be able to foster and/or adopt additional dogs when ones in care pass away, though not to exceed 12 at any one time. • The City’s Animal Services Bureau has no record of complaints at this address lodged within the last four years. The bureau notes, however, that the two members of Dogs Real Estate, LLC have a combined number of 12 dogs currently registered with the City. Registered dogs still expected to be living are current on vaccines and licenses. Dog’s Real Estate, LLC Agenda Item 4 page 2 of 10 Packet Pg. 451 5.L.a Zoning History Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit 1 Map Key No. Request SVR (Lot Width Reduction) Approved 1 03/22/2010 FVR Approved 03/22/2010 Application Types CUP: Conditional Use Permit MDP: Modiﬁcation of Proﬀers SVR: Subdivision Variance REZ: Rezoning NON: Nonconforming Use LUP: Land Use Plan CRZ: Conditional Rezoning STC: Street Closure STR: Short Term Rental MDC: Modiﬁcation of FVR: Floodplain Variance Conditions ALT: Alternative Compliance Evaluation & Recommendation In Staﬀ’s opinion, this request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Kennel is acceptable. The proposed use is compatible with the overall character and goals for the Rural Area, as deﬁned in the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is approximately a half-acre and is separated from nearby residences by mature trees. As proposed, the dogs will be primarily kept indoors; none will be kenneled outside. The applicant is speciﬁcally requesting to house elderly and disabled dogs, which are likely to make less noise than from as many young, active puppies and dogs. While it appears the applicant may have been keeping dogs in excess of the four permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, they are resolving that issue with this Conditional Use Permit; further, Animal Services Bureau has no objection to this application and there have been no complaints while animals have resided with these individuals. The applicant has provided a letter of support from their veterinarian and Staﬀ has no concerns about the animals’ welfare. To mitigate potential noise eﬀects on neighboring properties, Staﬀ recommends Condition 2, 5, 6, and 7 to ensure dogs will be kept indoors and not be left outdoors for long periods; that they are only permitted outdoors in fenced locations and under supervision; and that no breeding is permitted on site. Based on these considerations, Staﬀ recommends approval subject to the conditions below. Dog’s Real Estate, LLC Agenda Item 4 page 3 of 10 Packet Pg. 452 5.L.a Recommended Conditions Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be limited to a maximum of twelve (12) dogs, inclusive of adult dogs and puppies. 2. All animal waste from the dogs shall be collected and disposed of in a lawful manner on a daily basis. 3. The applicant shall ensure that all dogs are properly vaccinated and immunized and are licensed through the City of Virginia Beach. 4. No dog shall be left outdoors unattended for long periods of time. As volunteered by the applicant, the dogs shall be inside of the single-family dwelling, a soundproof/insulated and air-conditioned building, for the majority of the day, with an exception to breaks for urination, defecation, and daily exercise. 5. No more than six (6) dogs shall be permitted to be outdoors at any one time and the dogs shall always remain under supervision of the caretaker. 6. All dogs, when outside, shall remain within the fenced-in area and shall not be a nuisance to any other property owners or residents. 7. There shall be no breeding of dogs on the site. 8. Day Care, Training, and Boarding services for monetary consumption are not permitted on this site. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Certiﬁcate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this application are valid. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Oﬃce within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations This project falls within the Rural Area. The Rural Area’s main objectives are to create policies and strategies to preserve the primarily agricultural and environmental value and heritage of this area (p.1-121 to 1-129). This proposal will have no negative eﬀect on surrounding agricultural activities. Keeping dogs is understood to be an acceptable residential use and rural locations, such as this, are more suitable for larger numbers of animals, especially when kept indoors. Natural & Cultural Resources Impacts Dog’s Real Estate, LLC Agenda Item 4 page 4 of 10 Packet Pg. 453 5.L.a The site is located in the Southern Rivers Watershed. There are no known historic or cultural resources that will be aﬀected by this project. Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit Traﬃc Impacts/Transportation Traﬃc Counts Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traﬃc Existing Land Use 2 – 10 ADT Robinson Road No data available No data available Proposed Land Use 3 – 10 ADT 1 Average Daily Trips 2 as deﬁned by a single-family 3 4 as deﬁned by a single-family LOS = Level of Service dwelling dwelling and a Residential Kennel Master Transportation Plan (MTP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Robinson Road in the vicinity of this application is a rural road. There are no CIP projects slated for this area. Public Utility Impacts City water and sanitary sewer are not available to the property. The site is served by well water and septic service. Public Outreach Information Planning Commission • The applicant reported to Staﬀ that they met with surrounding neighbors in early July and received eleven signatures of support for the application, as well as an individual letter of support. • As required by the Zoning Ordinance, the public notice sign(s) was placed on the property on July 15, 2024. • As required by State Code, this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot on Wednesdays, July 31, 2024 and August 7, 2024. • As required by City Code, the adjacent property owners were notiﬁed regarding the request and the date of the Planning Commission public hearing on July 29, 2024. • This Staﬀ report, as well as all reports for this Planning Commission’s meeting, was posted on the Commission’s webpage of virginiabeach.gov/pc on August 8, 2024. City Council • As required by City Code, this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot on Tuesdays, September 3, 2024 and September 10, 2024. Dog’s Real Estate, LLC Agenda Item 4 page 5 of 10 Packet Pg. 454 5.L.a • As required by City Code, the adjacent property owners were notiﬁed regarding both the request and the date of the City Council’s public hearing on August 30, 2024. Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit • The City Clerk’s Oﬃce posted the materials associated with the application on the City Council website of https://clerk.virginiabeach.gov/city-council on September 13, 2024. Dog’s Real Estate, LLC Agenda Item 4 page 6 of 10 Packet Pg. 455 Site Photos Dog’s Real Estate, LLC Agenda Item 4 page 7 of 10 Packet Pg. 456 5.L.a Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit Disclosure Statement Dog’s Real Estate, LLC Agenda Item 4 page 8 of 10 Packet Pg. 457 5.L.a Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit Disclosure Statement Dog’s Real Estate, LLC Agenda Item 4 page 9 of 10 Packet Pg. 458 5.L.a Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit 5.L.a Next Steps Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit • Upon receiving a recommendation from Planning Commission, this request will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing. Staﬀ will inform the applicant and/or their representative of the date of the hearing in the upcoming days. • Following City Council’s decision, the applicant will receive a decision letter from Staﬀ. • Once the conditions of approval are in place and/or completed, the applicant must contact the Zoning Division of the Planning Department to obtain veriﬁcation that the conditions have been met. Contact the Zoning Division at 757-385-8074. • If the request requires land disturbance and/or a subdivision of property, please contact the Development Services Center (DSC) to discuss next steps for site plan/plat review. Contact the DSC at 757-385-4621 or the Development Liaison Team at 757-385-5692. • Please note that further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Certiﬁcate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this application are valid. • The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Oﬃce within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Dog’s Real Estate, LLC Agenda Item 4 page 10 of 10 Packet Pg. 459 5.L.a Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Rob AG2 inso n Ro AG2 AG2 ad Site Property Polygons Zoning Building Dogs Real Estate, LLC 3449 Robinson Road μ Feet Packet Pg. 460 0 15 30 60 90 120 150 180 5.L.a Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit Virginia Beach Planning Commission August 14, 2024 Public Meeting Item #4 Dog’s Real Estate, LLC Recommendation: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Discussion Ms. Cuellar: Our next item is Item #4, Dogs Real Estate, LLC. Is the applicant here? Welcome. Good afternoon. If you could please state your name for the record. Ms. Carnes: Yes, ma'am. Delphine Carnes, and this is Mike Jelinek. We represent Dogs Real Estate, and we agree with the conditions set forth by Staff for our Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Cuellar: Fantastic. Thank you very much. We appreciate that. You may be seated. Is there any opposition to this item being placed on the consent agenda? Hearing none, I have asked Commissioner Cromwell to read this into the record. Mr. Cromwell: The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for a residential kennel to use an existing 2,724 square foot home at 3449 Robinson Road as a sanctuary for elderly and disabled dogs. The property is owned AG2-Agricultural and is approximately a half-acre. The rear yard is fenced. The applicant is seeking to house up to 12 dogs on the property. The current resident of the property will continue to reside on the property. No dogs will be kept outdoors, and there will be no outdoor kennels. Dogs will sleep inside the home in either one of two large living rooms or the kitchen. The applicant has indicated that they are seeking status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization to carry on their work rehabilitating and housing elderly and disabled dogs. Hearing no objections, we hereby approve this application. Packet Pg. 461 5.L.a Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit Ms. Cuellar: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, that was the last item on the consent agenda. The Planning Commission will now place four items on the consent agenda. Items #1, 4, 7, and 11. Mr. Alcaraz: Thank you, Vice Chair. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as read by the Vice Chair? Motion by Mr. Plumlee, and second by Ms. Hippen. Madam Clerk: The vote is now open. By a vote of 10 to 0, consent agenda Items #1,4, 7, and 11 have been recommended for approval. Mr. Alcaraz: All right, thank you. Those items that were approved, you can get with your planning representative, and they'll tell you when you'll be seen at City Council. Thank you for coming. Vote Tally AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Alcaraz AYE Anderson AYE Byler AYE Cromwell AYE Coston AYE Cuellar AYE Estaris X Hippen AYE Mauch AYE Parks AYE Plumlee AYE CONDITIONS 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be limited to a maximum of twelve (12) dogs, inclusive of adult dogs and puppies. 2. All animal waste from the dogs shall be collected and disposed of in a lawful manner on a daily basis. 3. The applicant shall ensure that all dogs are properly vaccinated and immunized and are licensed through the City of Virginia Beach. Packet Pg. 462 5.L.a Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit 4. No dog shall be left outdoors unattended for long periods of time. As volunteered by the applicant, the dogs shall be inside of the single-family dwelling, a soundproof/insulated and air-conditioned building, for the majority of the day, with an exception to breaks for urination, defecation, and daily exercise. 5. No more than six (6) dogs shall be permitted to be outdoors at any one time and the dogs shall always remain under supervision of the caretaker. 6. All dogs, when outside, shall remain within the fenced-in area and shall not be a nuisance to any other property owners or residents. 7. There shall be no breeding of dogs on the site. 8. Day Care, Training, and Boarding services for monetary consumption are not permitted on this site. Packet Pg. 463 Packet Pg. 464 5.L.a Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit Packet Pg. 465 5.L.a Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit (Residential Kennel) Addre) Packet Pg. 466 5.L.a Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit Packet Pg. 467 5.L.a Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit Packet Pg. 468 5.L.a Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit Packet Pg. 469 5.L.a Attachment: 04_ARF Package for Dogs Real Estate, LLC (4205 : Dogs Real Estate, LLC (Applicant & Property Owner) Conditional Use Permit ROBERT JESSUP / ROBERT & JENNIFER A. JESSUP FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RE HOME OCCUPATION AT 2940 DANTE PLACE DISTRICT 3 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of . APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Manager City Attorney’s Office Packet Pg. 470 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: ROBERT JESSUP [Applicant] ROBERT & JENNIFER A. JESSUP [Property Owners] Conditional Use Permit (Home Occupation) for the property located at 2940 Dante Place (GPIN 1496327363). COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 (Berlucchi) MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024  Background: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation to operate a gunsmithing business within the single-family dwelling. The applicant will be the sole operator who will be repairing firearms and educating on gun safety. All gun safety education on this property will occur inside the single-family dwelling. There will be no sale of firearms or ammunition from this residence, only necessary firearm parts. No signs or advertisements are proposed for the property.  Considerations: No firearm or federally controlled item will be left on the property without properly being transferred to the owner. Section 234 of the Zoning Ordinance allows up to 20 percent of the total floor area of the primary and ancillary structures on the site to be used in association with a home occupation. In this instance, the Applicant plans on using 110 square feet of space in his home, which equates to 8 percent of the total floor area. All federally controlled items will be stored in an authorized secured safe. In addition to this Conditional Use Permit, the applicant anticipates obtaining a Federal Firearms License (FFL) through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosives (ATF) prior to conducting business. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is required for the applicant to obtain his FFL. All firearms that are on the site will be required to be secured in accordance with ATF regulations. Additionally, a City of Virginia Beach Police officer will conduct a security assessment of the home in the presence of the applicant within one month of obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. Further details pertaining to the application, as well as Staff’s evaluation, are provided in the attached Staff Report. Eight letters of support were received by Staff. There is no known opposition to this request. Packet Pg. 471 5.L.a Robert Jessup Page 2 of 3 Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional  Recommendation: On August 14, 2024, the Planning Commission passed a motion to recommend approval of this request by a vote of 10 to 0. 1. The Magic Hollow Land Use Plan shall be modified to grant the use of this site as depicted in the land survey dated July 1, 1992, which is exhibited on the “Existing Site Plan” below and kept on file with the Department of Planning and Community Development, to allow for the home occupation of a gunsmithing business. 2. Any firearm or firearm parts kept on the property shall be stored in a locked, secured vault or similar container. The applicant shall contact the Police Department’s Crime Prevention Office to arrange for a meeting at the property for the purpose of conducting a security assessment within one (1) month of the granting of this Conditional Use Permit. A report shall be written by the Police Department, with a copy provided to the applicant, the Planning Department, and a copy retained by the Police Department. 3. The applicant shall obtain and maintain a Federal Firearms License (FFL) through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosives (ATF) in order to conduct business. 4. Delivery of firearms to the property shall be received on the applicant’s property only, secured by the applicant’s signature. 5. There shall be no sign identifying the business on the exterior of any building on the property or within the yard of the property. 6. The use shall not create noise, dust, vibration, smell, glare, electrical interference, fire hazard, or any other hazard or nuisance to any greater or more frequent extent than would normally be expected in the neighborhood under normal circumstances wherein no home occupation exists. 7. No more than twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used in conduct of the activity. In addition, all activities related to the proposed Home Occupation shall only be conducted inside the 110 square foot room on the property. 8. There shall be no sales of any products or merchandise to the general public from the site. 9. There shall be only one (1) employee associated with this home-based business. 10. Hours of operation shall be between Tuesday and Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and limited to one (1) customer by appointment only. Packet Pg. 472 5.L.a Robert Jessup Page 3 of 3 Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional  Attachments: Staff Report and Disclosure Statements Location Map Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing Email from applicant describing Gun Safety Instruction classes Letters of Support (8) Recommended Action: Staff recommends Approval. Planning Commission recommends Approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: Packet Pg. 473 5.L.a Agenda Item 9 Applicant: Robert Jessup Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional Property Owner: Robert Jessup Planning Commission Public Hearing: August 14, 2024 City Council District: District 3 (Berlucchi) Project Details Request Conditional Use Permit (Home Occupation) Staﬀ Recommendation Approval Staﬀ Planner Rachael Miller Location 2940 Dante Place GPIN 1496327363 Site Size 6,596.67 square feet AICUZ Greater than 75 dB DNL Watershed Chesapeake Bay Existing Land Use and Zoning District Single-family dwelling / PD-H1 Planned Unit Development Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Districts North Single-family dwellings / PD-H1 Planned Unit Development South Dante Place Single-family dwellings / PD-H1 Planned Unit Development East Single-family dwellings / PD-H1 Planned Unit Development West Single-family dwellings / PD-H1 Planned Unit Development Robert Jessup Agenda Item 9 page 1 of 10 Packet Pg. 474 5.L.a Background & Summary of Proposal Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional • The applicant is seeking a Home Occupation permit to operate a gunsmithing business within a single- family dwelling on a parcel in the Magic Hollow neighborhood. • This property is located in the Magic Hollow Land Use Plan within a PD-H1 Planned Unit Development Zoning District. Home Occupations are not listed as a use allowed in Planned Unit Development Districts therefore, the applicant is seeking to amend the Magic Hollow Land Use Plan through the Conditional Use Permit process to allow the use on this property. • The applicant is currently enrolled in a gunsmithing and ﬁrearms safety course. The business would be to repair gun stocks for hunting ﬁrearms and teach gun safety and safe hunting practices on site. The applicant will be the sole operator of the in-home business. • There will be no selling, reloading, or manufacturing of ﬁrearms or ammunition with this gunsmithing business. No signs or advertisements are proposed for the property. • Hours of operation are from Tuesday and Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Only one customer will be serviced at a time and will be by appointment only. • Business will be conducted in a front room of the home that is approximately 110 square feet in size. • As required by federal law, the applicant will obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL) through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosives (ATF). All ﬁrearms will be secured in the home in accordance with ATF regulations. • Additionally, a City of Virginia Beach Police Oﬃcer will conduct a security assessment of the home in the presence of the applicant within one month of obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. Robert Jessup Agenda Item 9 page 2 of 10 Packet Pg. 475 5.L.a Zoning History Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional Map Key No. Request 1 LUP (Land Use Plan) Approved 01/01/1979 1 Application Types CUP: Conditional Use Permit MDP: Modiﬁcation of Proﬀers SVR: Subdivision Variance REZ: Rezoning NON: Nonconforming Use LUP: Land Use Plan CRZ: Conditional Rezoning STC: Street Closure STR: Short Term Rental MDC: Modiﬁcation of FVR: Floodplain Variance Conditions ALT: Alternative Compliance Evaluation & Recommendation In Staﬀ’s opinion, this request for a Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation is acceptable. The Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations for the Suburban Area are guided by the primary principle of creating and maintaining “Great Neighborhoods”. As a non-residential use within a residential area, the Comprehensive Plan seeks services and uses that are compatible for established residences. The applicant will conduct business with one customer at a time by appointment-only that are oﬀered three days a week within daytime hours, and therefore, not adding any signiﬁcant increases to weekday traﬃc or into the neighborhood. With neighbor support, this non-residential use would be maintaining neighborhood stability. Section 234 of the Zoning Ordinance allows up to 20 percent of the total ﬂoor area of the primary and ancillary structures on the site to be used in association with a home occupation. The applicant proposes to use a front room in the home that is approximately 110 square feet. The total ﬂoor area of the dwelling is 1,317 square feet, which equates to about 8% of the space in the home dedicated to gunsmithing operations. Therefore, the size of the business space is acceptable. If the applicant proposes to expand services oﬀered, a modiﬁcation of this Conditional Use Permit will be required. The applicant intends to store ﬁrearms in a locked and secured vault, in accordance with ATF regulations. As stated previously, the Virginia Beach Police Department will conduct a security assessment of the home within Robert Jessup Agenda Item 9 page 3 of 10 Packet Pg. 476 5.L.a one month of the granting of the Conditional Use Permit, as noted in Condition 2. The assessment will consist of the following items: Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional • Inspect all exterior lighting and recommend strategies for best lighting practices to be used • Inspect all landscaping, looking for any conﬂict with lighting and any area where there may be places to hide • Inspect all interior and exterior door and window locking devices to ensure that they provide adequate home security against burglary • Inspect all interior and exterior doors to determine adequacy of their strength against penetration by prying, force, or any other means • Inspect and review any alarm system that may be installed on the home • Inspect the room and safe where any ﬁrearms, ﬁrearm supplies, ﬁrearms parts, and money may be stored • If there are children in the home, the assessing oﬃcer will review safety measures as it pertains to ﬁrearms and the children. The Magic Hollow Land Use Plan does not list Home Occupation as a use. This Conditional Use Permit would amend the Magic Hollow LUP to allow for Home Occupation but only at this site, as noted in Condition 1. Based on the considerations above, Staﬀ ﬁnds that the proposed use meets the requirements of a Home Occupation as stated in Section 234 of the Zoning Ordinance. The requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the conditions recommended by Staﬀ are anticipated to further ensure the compatibility of the proposed use and the safety of the neighborhood. As such, Staﬀ recommends approval for this project subject to the conditions below. Recommended Conditions 1. The Magic Hollow Land Use Plan shall be modiﬁed to grant the use of this site as depicted in the land survey dated July 1, 1992, which is exhibited on the “Existing Site Plan” below and kept on ﬁle with the Department of Planning and Community Development, to allow for the home occupation of a gunsmithing business. 2. Any ﬁrearm or ﬁrearm parts kept on the property shall be stored in a locked, secured vault or similar container. The applicant shall contact the Police Department’s Crime Prevention Oﬃce to arrange for a meeting at the property for the purpose of conducting a security assessment within one (1) month of the granting of this Conditional Use Permit. A report shall be written by the Police Department, with a copy provided to the applicant, the Planning Department, and a copy retained by the Police Department. 3. The applicant shall obtain and maintain a Federal Firearms License (FFL) through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosives (ATF) in order to conduct business. 4. Delivery of ﬁrearms to the property shall be received on the applicant’s property only, secured by the applicant’s signature. Robert Jessup Agenda Item 9 page 4 of 10 Packet Pg. 477 5.L.a 5. There shall be no sign identifying the business on the exterior of any building on the property or within the yard of the property. Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional 6. The use shall not create noise, dust, vibration, smell, glare, electrical interference, ﬁre hazard, or any other hazard or nuisance to any greater or more frequent extent than would normally be expected in the neighborhood under normal circumstances wherein no home occupation exists. 7. No more than twenty (20) percent of the ﬂoor area of the dwelling unit shall be used in conduct of the activity. In addition, all activities related to the proposed Home Occupation shall only be conducted inside the 110 square foot room on the property. 8. There shall be no sales of any products or merchandise to the general public from the site. 9. There shall be only one (1) employee associated with this home-based business. 10. Hours of operation shall be between Tuesday and Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and limited to one (1) customer by appointment only. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Certiﬁcate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this application are valid. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Oﬃce within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations The Comprehensive Plan designates this property within the Suburban Area. The primary guiding principle for the Suburban Area is to create and maintain “Great Neighborhoods” with supporting principles to connect transportation systems and foster environmental and cultural stewardship. With no proposed alterations to the site, this proposal would not negatively impact transportation nor environmental resources. As a non- residential use within a residential area, the Comp Plan recommends the creation of compatible services and uses for residents. The applicant stated he is receiving training on gunsmithing and has had years of experience handling ﬁrearms through his time in the service and as a hunter. This service is seen as complimentary and follows recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. Natural & Cultural Resources Impacts The site is located in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and is located outside of the Resource Protection Area. There are no site improvements proposed with this application. Robert Jessup Agenda Item 9 page 5 of 10 Packet Pg. 478 5.L.a No historic or cultural resources will be aﬀected by this project. Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional Traﬃc Impacts/Transportation Traﬃc Counts Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traﬃc Existing Land Use 1 – 10 ADT 2 Dante Place No Data Available No Data Available Proposed Land Use 3 – No Data Available 1 as deﬁned by a 1-unit Single 2 Average Daily Trips 3 No information available in Family Dwelling the ITE Trip Generation Manual for event venues Master Transportation Plan (MTP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Dante Place is a two-lane undivided local street. It is not included in the Master Transportation Plan and no CIP projects are planned for Dante Place at this time. Active Transportation Plan Dante Place is not listed in the Active Transportation Plan. As a single-family dwelling in an established neighborhood, this business could provide parking for those who elect to use non-vehicular transportation. Public Utility Impacts Water & Sewer The site connects to City sewer and water. Public Outreach Information Planning Commission • The applicant reported that they met with the surrounding property owners, and no objections were raised. Eight letters of support have been received by Staﬀ. • As required by the Zoning Ordinance, the public notice sign(s) was placed on the property on July 15, 2024. • As required by State Code, this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot on Wednesdays, July 31, 2024 and August 7, 2024. • As required by City Code, the adjacent property owners were notiﬁed regarding the request and the date of the Planning Commission public hearing on July 29, 2024. Robert Jessup Agenda Item 9 page 6 of 10 Packet Pg. 479 5.L.a • This Staﬀ report, as well as all reports for this Planning Commission’s meeting, was posted on the Commission’s webpage of virginiabeach.gov/pc on August 8, 2024. Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional City Council • As required by City Code, this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot on Tuesdays, September 3, 2024 and September 10, 2024. • As required by City Code, the adjacent property owners were notiﬁed regarding both the request and the date of the City Council’s public hearing on August 30, 2024. • The City Clerk’s Oﬃce posted the materials associated with the application on the City Council website of https://clerk.virginiabeach.gov/city-council on September 13, 2024. Robert Jessup Agenda Item 9 page 7 of 10 Packet Pg. 480 Existing Site Plan Existing Dwelling Proposed Work Space Robert Jessup Agenda Item 9 page 8 of 10 Packet Pg. 481 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional Site Photos Robert Jessup Agenda Item 9 page 9 of 10 Packet Pg. 482 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional 5.L.a Next Steps Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional • Upon receiving a recommendation from Planning Commission, this request will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing. Staﬀ will inform the applicant and/or their representative of the date of the hearing in the upcoming days. • Following City Council’s decision, the applicant will receive a decision letter from Staﬀ. • Once the conditions of approval are in place and/or completed, the applicant must contact the Zoning Division of the Planning Department to obtain veriﬁcation that the conditions have been met. Contact the Zoning Division at 757-385-8074. • If the request requires land disturbance and/or a subdivision of property, please contact the Development Services Center (DSC) to discuss next steps for site plan/plat review. Contact the DSC at 757-385-4621 or the Development Liaison Team at 757-385-5692. • Please note that further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Certiﬁcate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this application are valid. • The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Oﬃce within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Robert Jessup Agenda Item 9 page 10 of 10 Packet Pg. 483 5.L.a Disclosure Statement Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional The disclosures contained in this form are necessary to inform public officials who may vote on the application as to whether they have a conflict of interest under Virginia law. Completion and submission of this form is required for all applications that pertain to City real estate matters or to the development and/or use of property in the City of Virginia Beach requiring action by the City Council, boards, commissions, or other bodies. SECTION 1: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Name: as listed on application Robert Jessup ____________________________________________________________________ Is Applicant also the Owner of the subject property? Yes No If no, Property Owner must complete SECTION 2: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE (page 3). Does Applicant have a Representative? Yes No If yes, name Representative: ______________________________________________________________ Is Applicant a corporation, partnership, firm, business, trust or unincorporated business? Yes No If yes, list the names of all officers, directors, members, or trustees below AND businesses that have a parent- subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the applicant. (Attach list if necessary.) Does the subject property have a proposed or pending purchaser? Yes No If yes, name proposed or pending purchaser: _________________________________________________ KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action? Yes No If yes, name the official or employee, and describe the nature of their interest. APPLICANT SERVICES DISCLOSURE READ: The Applicant must certify whether the following services are being provided in connection to the subject application or any business operating or to be operated on the property. The name of the entity and/or individual providing such services must be identified. (Attach list if necessary.) SERVICE YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER (Name entity and/or individual) Financing (mortgage, deeds of trust, cross-collateralization, etc.) Real Estate Broker/Agent/Realtor Disclosure Statement | rev. M a y -2024 page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 484 5.L.a SECTION 1: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE continued Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional SERVICE YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER (Name entity and/or individual) Accounting/Tax Return Preparation Architect/Designer/Landscape Architect/Land Planner Construction Contractor Engineer/Surveyor/Agent Legal Services APPLICANT CERTIFICATION READ: I certify that all information contained in this Form is complete, true, and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein three weeks prior to the meeting of Planning Commission, City Council, VBDA, CBPA, Wetlands Board or any public body or committee in connection with this application. Robert Jessup ________________________________________ 7/15/2024 ___________________________________________ ____________________ Applicant Name (Print) Applicant Signature Date 1 “Parent-subsidiary relationship” means “a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation.” See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, VA. Code § 2.2-3101. 2 “Affiliated business entity relationship” means “a relationship, other than parent-subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities.” See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. FOR CITY USE ONLY: 8/27/2024 No changes as of (date): __________________ Rachael Miller _________________________________ 9/4/2024 _____________________________________ ________________ Staff Name (Print) Staff Signature Date Disclosure Statement | rev. M a y -2024 page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 485 5.L.a SECTION 2: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Property Owner Name: as listed on application __________________________________________________________________ Is the Owner a corporation, partnership, firm, business, trust, or unincorporated business? Yes No If yes, list the names of all officers, directors, members, or trustees below AND businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the applicant. (Attach list if necessary.) Does the subject property have a proposed or pending purchaser? Yes No If yes, name proposed or pending purchaser: _________________________________________________ KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action? Yes No If yes, name the official or employee, and describe the nature of their interest. PROPERTY OWNER SERVICES DISCLOSURE READ: The Owner must certify whether the following services are being provided in connection to the subject application or any business operating or to be operated on the property. The name of the entity or individual providing such services must be identified. (Attach list if necessary.) SERVICE YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER (Name entity and/or individual) Financing (mortgage, deeds of trust, cross-collateralization, etc.) Real Estate Broker/Agent/Realtor Accounting/Tax Return Preparation Architect/Designer/Landscape Architect/Land Planner Construction Contractor Engineer/Surveyor/Agent Legal Services PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION READ: I certify that all information contained in this Form is complete, true, and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein three weeks prior to the meeting of Planning Commission, City Council, VBDA, CBPA, Wetlands Board or any public body or committee in connection with this application. Robert Jessup ________________________________ 7/15/2024 ___________________________________ _________________ Property Owner Name (Print) Property Owner Signature Date Disclosure Statement | rev. M a y -2024 page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 486 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. PDH1 PDH1 Da nt eP lac e Dante Place PDH1 Site Property Polygons Zoning Building Robert Jessup 2940 Dante Place μ Feet Packet Pg. 487 0 15 30 60 90 120 150 180 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional Virginia Beach Planning Commission August 14, 2024 Public Meeting Item #9 Robert Jessup Recommendation: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Discussion Mr. Alcaraz: All right. Thank you. Now we'll move to applicant #9. Please come forward. Afternoon, you can just state your name for the record, please. Mr. Jessup: How you doing? I'm Robert Jessup, and I have received and have all the information from the Planning Commission on their guidelines and everything, and I'm on track for that. Mr. Alcaraz: Sure, I think some of the Commissioners might have some questions for you, unless you have any additional information to give us. Mr. Jessup: I don’t have any questions. Mr. Alcaraz: Okay. Commissioners? Mr. Plumlee: Mr. Jessup. How are you today? Thank you for coming by. I understand you are going to be having a repair, very small repair within your home of firearms. Is that fair? Mr. Jessup: Correct. Mr. Plumlee: So what is the process? And does that require any kind of special chemicals? Anything of any concern that you have to maintain in your home? Mr. Jessup: No, everything I use is biodegradable. All the modern chemicals that are out there, nothing, and I've gone through and with the Planning [Department] and their instructions on planning commission [process]. There's no hazardous waste disposal requirements or anything. Packet Pg. 488 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional Mr. Plumlee: And you've submitted for the federal license and that requires background checks, I'm assured and other items. Is that fair? Mr. Jessup: That is correct, and I cannot go through that process until the City has authorized this process and every individual that goes through it, whether I move out or not, they would not be granted. Ms. Plumlee: They're not going to bother to do that unless they know you can actually be permitted by the locality to do it here, but for you to actually initiate in this repair operation, you must first receive those permits? Mr. Jessup: Correct. Once I'm done with this, then I go through that, that's another three month process. Mr. Plumlee: And then you also, I think it states here, you're going to maintain a secure, safe, or you're going to be able to secure the firearms. Mr. Jessup: Correct. I already have an authorized secured safe. I also have a monitored security system on the home with cameras, motion sensors and everything. Ms. Plumlee: And the testing of the firearms does not occur in the house that has to go. Mr. Jessup: No testing of firearms whatsoever. No manufacturing. My license will not authorize any manufacturing of firearms. I am just getting a repair of existing firearms. Mr. Plumlee: Okay. And what's been your experience with firearms so far? Mr. Jessup: I was an armorer in the Marine Corps, and then my whole life, back when I first purchased my first firearm, you didn't need it. I went in at 14 years old, the Kmart and bought a firearm. I am currently self-enrolled in a program just to keep up with, this is the third time I've done it since I've been out of Packet Pg. 489 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional the Marine Corps to keep current on all rules, regulations and operations of firearms and safety training. Mr. Plumlee: I really appreciate you coming down to answer those questions. Mr. Alcaraz: All right. Any other questions for Mr. Jessup? Mr. Parks? Mr. Parks: One other thing that was mentioned in the informal is an education component for hunting. Is that something that you still plan to be doing from the house? Mr. Jessup: Yes, that is my main thing is to keep people educated, and a lot of people I find are inheriting grandpa's firearm. They do hunt, but they don't have any formal training or anything, and I want to keep them informed of safe operation and all the rules and regulations and laws for it. Mr. Parks: Thank you. I think that's just important to be on the record. Mr. Alcaraz: All right. No, that's fine. Any other questions for the applicant? Ms. Cuellar: I have a question. In the business of gunsmithing, does it also include potentially like antique or like older guns that you make a reference that sometimes families inherit firearms kind of part of your business? Mr. Jessup: Correct. And with that, there is no anything older than 50 years old, there is no license requirement. Ms. Cuellar: Thank you. Mr. Jessup: You’re welcome. Mr. Alcaraz: Any other questions over here on my right? You haven't been forgotten. Just a lot of questions here on my left. Alright, no questions? Anybody? Packet Pg. 490 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional Mr. Plumlee: I’ll move to approve it. Ms. Hippen: Second. Mr. Alcaraz: Motion by Ms. Plumlee, and second by Ms. Hippen Madam Clerk: The vote is now open. By a vote of 10:0, the item number 9 has been approved. Mr. Alcaraz: Thank you, sir. Mr. Jessup: Thank you. Vote Tally AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Alcaraz AYE Anderson AYE Byler AYE Cromwell AYE Coston AYE Cuellar AYE Estaris X Hippen AYE Mauch AYE Parks AYE Plumlee AYE CONDITIONS 1. The Magic Hollow Land Use Plan shall be modified to grant the use of this site as depicted in the land survey dated July 1, 1992, which is exhibited on the “Existing Site Plan” below and kept on file with the Department of Planning and Community Development, to allow for the home occupation of a gunsmithing business. 2. Any firearm or firearm parts kept on the property shall be stored in a locked, secured vault or similar container. The applicant shall contact the Police Department’s Crime Prevention Office to arrange for a meeting at the property for the purpose of conducting a security assessment within one (1) month of the granting of this Conditional Use Permit. A report shall be written by the Police Department, with a copy provided to the applicant, the Planning Department, and a copy retained by the Police Department. 3. The applicant shall obtain and maintain a Federal Firearms License (FFL) through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosives (ATF) in order to conduct business. Packet Pg. 491 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional 4. Delivery of firearms to the property shall be received on the applicant’s property only, secured by the applicant’s signature. 5. There shall be no sign identifying the business on the exterior of any building on the property or within the yard of the property. 6. The use shall not create noise, dust, vibration, smell, glare, electrical interference, fire hazard, or any other hazard or nuisance to any greater or more frequent extent than would normally be expected in the neighborhood under normal circumstances wherein no home occupation exists. 7. No more than twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used in conduct of the activity. In addition, all activities related to the proposed Home Occupation shall only be conducted inside the 110 square foot room on the property. 8. There shall be no sales of any products or merchandise to the general public from the site. 9. There shall be only one (1) employee associated with this home-based business. 10. Hours of operation shall be between Tuesday and Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and limited to one (1) customer by appointment only. Packet Pg. 492 5.L.a From: Marchelle L. Coleman Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional To: Marchelle L. Coleman Subject: FW: Synopsis of Gun Safety Instruction for CUP Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 10:19:48 AM From: Robert Jessup <robdadinvirginia@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 9:19 PM To: Rachael Miller <RacMiller@vbgov.com> Subject: Re: Synopsis of Gun Safety Instruction for CUP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Firearms safety instruction, As far as at my home. THERE WILL BE AT NO TIME THE USE OF REAL FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS at my residence. All instructions with firearms will be done at an authorized range only. This is ONE on ONE instruction, unless with a minor, than the Parent or a responsible adult must be present. My primary instruction will be for those using firearms for hunting. At my home there will only be Basic firearms safety, cleaning and maintenance, laws pertaining to transportation and handling of firearms instruction given. Also safety while hunting, ie. tree stand safety along with safe shooting practices while hunting. Instruction with minors will only be conducted with the Parent or responsible adult present. 1, Instruction will start with basic firearms safety and laws pertaining to transportation and handling of firearms. Two hours. 2, After completion of that point will be fundamentals of cleaning and maintaining there firearm, instruction only. No firearms used for this at my residence. 2 hours. 3, At this point any further instruction is conducted at a range. Must be 16years(minor must have parent or responsible adult present) or older and legally allowed to handle a firearm. …At no time will I be providing a firearm for instruction, the customer must have a firearm of their own to use. At the range the customer has to bring there firearm for basic fundamentals and safety again to ensure the understanding of safe handling of firearms. I also require there to be proof of approved lock for firearms where there is a minor present in the home. Via lock, safe or other approved device. This will be a minimum 2 hour class. 4. After completion of the first three we move on to dry fire training than live fire training. Time frame for this lesson will be depend on there knowledge and understanding of firearms, can be several hours to multiple sessions. …..again all instructions of minors(16 years of age or older) must have parent or designated responsible adult present. This is the basics of a course. Again this will be on an individual basis. At no time will the handling of firearms or ammunition be used at my residence for this instruction. Packet Pg. 493 Thank you Robert Jessup Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS Please let me know if any further information required. Packet Pg. 494 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional Packet Pg. 495 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional Packet Pg. 496 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional Packet Pg. 497 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional Packet Pg. 498 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional Packet Pg. 499 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional Packet Pg. 500 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional Packet Pg. 501 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional Packet Pg. 502 5.L.a Attachment: 05_ARF Package for Robert Jessup (4206 : Robert Jessup (Applicant) Robert & Jennifer A. Jessup (Property Owners) Conditional DANIELLE GOOD / STAR REAL ESTATE LLC FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RE TATTOO PARLOR AT 397 LITTLE NECK ROAD DISTRICT 8 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of . APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Manager City Attorney’s Office Packet Pg. 503 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: DANIELLE GOOD [Applicant] STAR REAL ESTATE LLC [Property Owner] Conditional Use Permit (Tattoo Parlor) for the property located at 397 Little Neck, Suite 303 (GPIN 14877553730000). COUNCIL DISTRICT 8 (Taylor) MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024  Background: The applicant will teach permanent makeup techniques including styles of eyebrows, eyeliner, lips, and camouflage, within an existing 1,436 square foot suite in the Little Neck Office Park. The office park is located along Little Neck Road on a property zoned B-2 Business District. According to the applicant, classes will consist of no more than 5 students per class and all student practice will be done with the direct supervision of a licensed Permanent Cosmetic Tattoo Instructor. The applicant also intends to allow licensed students to charge for services in the space. The hours of operation for both the services and classes are Monday through Wednesday from 10:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. and Tuesday and Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. No exterior changes are proposed to the building. As the use of Permanent Makeup is not being added within an existing full-service salon and the suite will be used strictly for this service a Conditional Use Permit is required. As the square footage of the suite does not exceed 7,500 an additional Conditional Use Permit for a Vocational School is not required.  Considerations: The request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Tattoo Parlor, specifically for the application of permanent makeup, in Staff’s opinion, is acceptable. A vocational school for the instruction of the application of permanent makeup within an existing commercial space is not expected to negatively impact other uses within the office park or the vicinity. Further details pertaining to the application, as well as Staff’s evaluation, are provided in the attached Staff Report. Three (3) letters of opposition were received about the request stating concerns related to how the owner operates the business.  Recommendation: On August 14, 2024, the Planning Commission passed a motion to recommend approval of this request by a vote of 10 to 0. 1. The Conditional Use Permit for a Tattoo Parlor applies solely to 397 Little Neck Road, Suite 303. Packet Pg. 504 5.L.a Danielle Good Page 2 of 2 Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use 2. A business license for the Tattoo Parlor shall not be issued to the applicant without the approval of the Health Department to ensure compliance with the provisions of Chapter 23-51 of the City Code. 3. This Conditional Use Permit for a Tattoo Parlor shall be limited to the application of permanent makeup. No other form of tattooing shall be permitted. 4. The actual application of permanent makeup shall not be visible from the exterior of the establishment or from the waiting and sales area within the establishment. 5. Any on-site signage for the establishment shall meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, and there shall be no neon, electronic display or similar signage installed on the exterior of the building or in any window, or on the doors. Window signage shall not be permitted. A separate sign permit shall be obtained from the Department of Planning & Community Development for the installation of any new signs.  Attachments: Staff Report and Disclosure Statements Location Map Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing Letter(s) of Opposition (3) Recommended Action: Staff recommends Approval. Planning Commission recommends Approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: Packet Pg. 505 5.L.a Agenda Item 8 Applicant: Danielle Good Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Property Owner: Li le Neck Oﬃce Park, LLC Planning Commission Public Hearing: August 14, 2024 City Council District: District 8 (Taylor) Project Details Request Condi onal Use Permit (Ta oo Parlor) Staﬀ Recommenda on Approval Staﬀ Planner Madison Harris Eichholz Loca on 397 Li le Neck Road, Suite 303 GPIN 1487755373 Site Size 65,588.26 square feet AICUZ Less than 65 dB DNL Watershed Chesapeake Bay Exis ng Land Use and Zoning District Oﬃce Park / B-2 Community Business Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Districts North Mixed Oﬃce Use / B-2 Community Business South Mixed Oﬃce Use / B-2 Community Business East Li le Neck Road Shopping Center / B-2 Community Business West Municipal Oﬃce Building / B-2 Community Business Danielle Good Agenda Item 8 page 1 of 9 Packet Pg. 506 5.L.a Background & Summary of Proposal Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use  The applicant will teach permanent makeup techniques including styles of eyebrows, eyeliner, lips, and camouflage, within an exis ng 1,436 square foot suite in the Li le Neck Oﬃce Park. The oﬃce park is located along Li le Neck Road on property zoned B-2 Community Business District.  According to the applicant, classes will consist of no more than 5 students per class and all student prac ce will be done with the direct supervision of a licensed Permanent Cosme c Ta oo Instructor.  The applicant is reques ng a Condi onal Use Permit to operate a Ta oo Parlor, specifically for the applica on of permanent makeup, known as microblading. Due to the size of the suite an addi onal Condi onal Use Permit for a Voca onal School is not required.  As the use of Permanent Makeup is not being added within an exis ng full-service salon and the suite will be used strictly for this service a Condi onal Use Permit is required.  The proposed hours of the classes are Monday through Wednesday from 10:00 a.m. un l 3:30 p.m. and Tuesday and Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. un l 9:00 p.m.  The applicant intends to allow licensed students to charge for services in the space. These services will only take place during the proposed class hours.  No exterior changes to the building are proposed. Zoning History Map Key No. Request CUP (Bulk Storage Yard) Approved 1 12/18/2001 1 ApplicaƟon Types CUP: Condi onal Use Permit MDP: Modifica on of Proﬀers SVR: Subdivision Variance REZ: Rezoning NON: Nonconforming Use LUP: Land Use Plan CRZ: Condi onal Rezoning STC: Street Closure STR: Short Term Rental MDC: Modifica on of FVR: Floodplain Variance Condi ons ALT: Alterna ve Compliance Danielle Good Agenda Item 8 page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 507 5.L.a Evalua on & Recommenda on Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use The request for a Condi onal Use Permit for a Ta oo Parlor, specifically for the applica on of permanent makeup, in Staﬀ’s opinion, is acceptable. This property falls within the Rosemont SGA which calls for the redevelopment of commercial strips into mixed-use centers. Although this project does not meet that par cular goal of the SGA, it does meet other goals such as serving the growing popula on and diversifying the types of business in the area. A voca onal school for the instruc on of the applica on of permanent makeup within an exis ng commercial space is not expected to nega vely impact other uses within the oﬃce park or the vicinity. Prior to commencing opera ons on the site, the applicant must obtain a business license and the Health Department must verify that the business meets all the requirements of Chapter 23-51 of the City Code. Chapter 23-51 details the standards for disclosure, hygiene, licenses, waivers, proof of age, recordkeeping, inspec ons, cleanliness, vaccina ons, and permi ng applicable to such establishments. A Cer ficate of Occupancy will not be issued un l the requirements are sa sfied and Health Department approval is obtained. It is Staﬀ’s opinion that the proposed ta oo parlor will not result in a significant increase in traﬃc in this established strip shopping center as the use is consistent with typical strip shopping center uses. For the reasons stated above, Staﬀ recommends approval of this applica on, subject to the condi ons listed below. Recommended Condi ons 1. The Condi onal Use Permit for a Ta oo Parlor applies solely to 397 Li le Neck Road, Suite 303. 2. A business license for the Ta oo Parlor shall not be issued to the applicant without the approval of the Health Department to ensure compliance with the provisions of Chapter 23-51 of the City Code. 3. This Condi onal Use Permit for a Ta oo Parlor shall be limited to the applica on of permanent makeup. No other form of ta ooing shall be permi ed. 4. The actual applica on of permanent makeup shall not be visible from the exterior of the establishment or from the wai ng and sales area within the establishment. 5. Any on-site signage for the establishment shall meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, and there shall be no neon, electronic display or similar signage installed on the exterior of the building or in any window, or on the doors. Window signage shall not be permi ed. A separate sign permit shall be obtained from the Department of Planning & Community Development for the installa on of any new signs. Further condi ons may be required during the administra on of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submi ed with this applica on may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all Danielle Good Agenda Item 8 page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 508 5.L.a applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Permits and Inspec ons Division, and the issuance of a Cer ficate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this applica on are valid. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Preven on Oﬃce within the Police Department for crime preven on techniques and Crime Preven on Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Comprehensive Plan Recommenda ons This project falls within the Rosemont SGA. The primary vision for the redevelopment and design of Rosemont is to transform under-u lized property into a series of mix-use and residen al development and improve public infrastructure. Based on the goals of the Rosemont SGA Master Plan, the project will help to serve the needs of the growing popula on in the area. Though this does not align with the main goal of the SGA, to turn commercial strips into mixed-use developments, this salon is within an appropriate commercial area and adds to the diversity of businesses and educa onal opportuni es oﬀered to the Virginia Beach community. This project will help bring in students and future customers into this property. This use being located within a highly residen al area will promote mul modal travel. The recommenda ons laid out in the Rosemont SGA Master Plan align with this project’s proposal. Natural & Cultural Resources Impacts The site is located in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. There are known historic or cultural resources that will be aﬀected by this project. Traﬃc Impacts/Transporta on Traﬃc Counts Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traﬃc Li le Neck Road 16,400 ADT1 32,700 ADT 1 (LOS 2 “D”) No Change An cipated 1 2 Average Daily Trips LOS = Level of Service Master Transporta on Plan (MTP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Li le Neck Road in front of the site is a four-lane suburban arterial. There are no projects in the CIP to improve Li le Neck Road. Danielle Good Agenda Item 8 page 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 509 5.L.a Ac ve Transporta on Plan The Ac ve Transporta on Plan calls for the improvement of the exis ng Side path adjacent to this project. Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use However, due to the scope of this project, namely that the applicant is occupying an exis ng unit and no exterior site improvements are proposed, staﬀ is not requiring the applicant to complete improvements. Public U lity Impacts Water & Sewer This site is connected to City water & City sanitary sewer. Water and sanitary sewer service must be verified and improved if necessary, so that the proposed development will have adequate water pressure, fire protec on and sanitary sewer service. Public Outreach Informa on Planning Commission  As required by the Zoning Ordinance, the public no ce sign(s) was placed on the property on July 15, 2024.  As required by State Code, this item was adver sed in the Virginian-Pilot on Wednesdays, July 31, 2024 and August 7, 2024.  As required by City Code, the adjacent property owners were no fied regarding the request and the date of the Planning Commission public hearing on July 29, 2024.  This Staﬀ report, as well as all reports for this Planning Commission’s mee ng, was posted on the Commission’s webpage of virginiabeach.gov/pc on August 8, 2024. City Council  As required by City Code, this item was adver sed in the Virginian-Pilot on Tuesdays, September 3, 2024 and September 10, 2024.  As required by City Code, the adjacent property owners were no fied regarding both the request and the date of the City Council’s public hearing on August 30, 2024.  The City Clerk’s Oﬃce posted the materials associated with the applica on on the City Council website of h ps://clerk.virginiabeach.gov/city-council on September 13, 2024. Danielle Good Agenda Item 8 page 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 510 Proposed Site Layout Danielle Good Agenda Item 8 page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 511 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Proposed Floor Plan Danielle Good Agenda Item 8 page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 512 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Site Photos Danielle Good Agenda Item 8 page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 513 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use 5.L.a Next Steps Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use  Upon receiving a recommenda on from Planning Commission, this request will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing. Staﬀ will inform the applicant and/or their representa ve of the date of the hearing in the upcoming days.  Following City Council’s decision, the applicant will receive a decision le er from Staﬀ.  Once the condi ons of approval are in place and/or completed, the applicant must contact the Zoning Division of the Planning Department to obtain verifica on that the condi ons have been met. Contact the Zoning Division at 757-385-8074.  If the request requires land disturbance and/or a subdivision of property, please contact the Development Services Center (DSC) to discuss next steps for site plan/plat review. Contact the DSC at 757-385-4621 or the Development Liaison Team at 757-385-5692.  Please note that further condi ons may be required during the administra on of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submi ed with this applica on may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Permits and Inspec ons Division, and the issuance of a Cer ficate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this applica on are valid.  The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Preven on Oﬃce within the Police Department for crime preven on techniques and Crime Preven on Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Danielle Good Agenda Item 8 page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 514 Packet Pg. 515 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Known Interest by Public Official or Employee Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia h have an interest in the subject land or any proposed development � contingent on the subject public action? D Yes No � • If yes, what is the name of he official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Applicant Services Disclosure 1. Does the applicant have any existing financing (mortgage, deeds of trust, cross-collateralization, etc) or are they considering any finan�� connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? □ Yes ;8:"J No • If yes, identify the financial institutions providing the service. tdCA \ . 2. Does the a&nt have a real estate broker/agent/realtor for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property? D Yes .l,ll. No • If yes, identify the mpany and individual providing the service. n,� 'J 3. Does the applicant have services for accounting and/or preparation of tax returns provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? D Yes XNo • If yes, identify the firm and individual providing the service. n /(j._/ 4. Does the applicant have services from an architect/landscape architect/land planner provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? D Yes ,XNo • If yes, identify he firm and individual providing the service. 0--. 5. Is there any other pending or proposed purchaser of the subject property? D Yes • If yes, identify the purchaser and purchaser's servi providers. Revi.sed 11.09.2020 21 g Packet Pg. 516 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use 6. Does the applicant have a construction cont{.1or in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or _ to be operated on the property? D Yes _p.No • If yes, identify the company and ind idual providing the service. : nL� 7. Does the applicant have an engineer/surveyor/agent in c�tion with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? D Yes � No _ • If yes, identify the firm and individ I providing the service. 8. Is the applicant receiving legal service in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? D Yes • If yes, identify the firm and indivi Applicant Signature I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete, true, and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the meeting of Planning Commission, City Council, VBDA, CBPA, Wetlands Board or any p lie body or committee in connection with this application. Is the applicant also the owner of the subject property? D Yes �o • If yes, you do not need to fill out the owner disclosure statement. X 8/29/24 Madison Byrd Harris Eichholz Revised 11.09.2020 3 I Pa e Packet Pg. 517 5.L.a R7.5 R7.5 R7.5 R7.5 Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park B2 R7.5 k Little Nec B2 B2 B2 B2 Road ule vard a ch Bo ia B e Virgin B2 Site Property Polygons Zoning Building Danielle Good 397 Little Neck Road, Suite 303 μ Feet Packet Pg. 518 0 40 80 160 240 320 400 480 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Virginia Beach Planning Commission July 10, 2024, Public Meeting Item # 11 Danielle Good Recommendation: RECOMMENDED FOR DEFFERAL Discussion Mr. Alcaraz: All right. Thank you. Next item? Ms. Alcock: Agenda Item#11, Danielle Good is a conditional use permit for a tattoo parlor at 397 Little Neck Road, Suite 307 in District 8. Mr. Alcaraz: Is the applicant here? I just want you know you have 10 minutes. I didn't say at the beginning because we had some attorneys that are representing the applicant. I just want to let you know, you have 10 minutes, and the if there is a speaker, has three minutes. Ms. Good: Okay. Thank you so much, and thank you for you for letting me to speak. It's my understanding that you are wanting to defer this motion to get a conditional use permit. When I moved here in 2010, it took me three years to find a place where I could actually do permanent cosmetics in this city with B2 zoned and all the restrictions. In early or late 2015, the restrictions were taken down, and in 2016 I was able to get a conditional use permit to open up a permanent cosmetic tattoo school. I was excited. I was so excited. I opened it. It went well. I also got another one in 2022 with another lady, and because we had to move from that building. So that was my second one. Then I got a third one in 2003, which I orchestrated. It was in somebody else's name. Now, I'm here for 2024. The reason I'm here is because I recently got unlawfully evicted, and there is another similar case going on right now with it. So, I was put out of business. I had to close down my school for 30 days. It’s been really hard. So, I really ask you guys not to defer this. I really need to go through with it. I've been paying rent since May 1 st, and I'm on a little Packet Pg. 519 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use wire. If you guys do defer it that's fine too. I'll come back next month. I do ask that you don't. I just put up the signs where I was told to put them up, and I understand that it wasn't in the correct spot, the building. Again, I've been doing this profession since 2005. I love my job, and I just want to keep doing it, and I've been operating without being able to do permanent cosmetics. I run as a school. So there's my money right there, but I would love to be able to do permanent cosmetics where I do it, when I do it, and how I do it. I'm unable to be in my permanent suite until I do get my conditional use permit, which also hinders me from getting approved to have the GI Bill, the students be able to, who has the GI Bill to come to the school, and I can't have them come out until I'm in my permanent suite, and going by all the correct ordinances, and stuff. It's really all I have to say. Mr. Alcaraz: That's okay. Well, any questions? Mr. Plumlee, your light is on. Mr. Plumlee: Yes. So you agree that the sign was put in the wrong location? Ms. Good: I do agree that. I just put him where I was told to put him right. Mr. Plumlee: But you agree that happened? Ms. Good: Say again. Mr. Plumlee: You agree, in fact that did happen. Ms. Good: Yes, because the building was marked wrong, yes. Mr. Alcaraz: Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. At this time, we're going to call another speaker. Packet Pg. 520 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Ms. Alcock: Yeah, we have four speakers right now, four speakers and one via Webex. So, we'll start with Cynthia Shot followed by Yuri Hee. Mr. Alcaraz: Good afternoon. State your name please. Ms. Shot: My name is Cynthia shot. Mr. Alcaraz: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Ms. Shot: I don't even know where to begin. I came to you guys about two and a half years ago to open up a business with Ms. Good. I was very excited. I do paramedical tattooing. So, I give 3D aerial list of cancer survivors lips to people that were born with cleft lip, hair to girls that are have trichotillomania diseases. Ms. Good was my original teacher at the location that she spoke up on Virginia Beach Boulevard. So, when she came to me and asked me to open up a school with her, I was extremely excited because the financial possibilities of that would have been amazing for my family. I'm a single mom, and I have a kid in college or in high school at the time. So we went into business together. I taught two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. I was doing my business around then, but we had to leave that location, go to a second location. Shortly, after we got into business together, there was a lot of illegal activity happening. When I confronted her about this illegal activity, I was threatened. They started putting new trespassing signs up at the shop. There was letters from lawyers threatening me to get me for defamation of character. It's one of the reasons why I was very afraid to speak up today about what I've been through in the last two years, but I feel like I owe it to anybody in the future that would go into business or partner up with this woman their lives would be in danger, that their livelihood would be completely annihilated. I didn't know when I went into business with her that she had been convicted Packet Pg. 521 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use of meth. I didn't know that I would deal with prostitution. I didn't know, I mean, I would have clients, and I would try to, you know, when you have a breast cancer that comes in, it's supposed to be serene and quiet, a healing time for them, and she would be in the next room loudly doing what she was doing, and I would confront her and she's like don't like it leave. So I went and hired a lawyer. The first lawyer I paid $300 too. He told me to mind my own business. I went to a second lawyer because at that point they were suing to get me out of the building. The second lawyer told me that it would cost me too much money to get out of business with her, asked me would I pay her off. I didn't have the money to pay her off because I had just used my life savings to go into business with her in the first place. She took the students, moved them to a second location that was not zoned for a school. She continued to teach out of the second location that was not zoned for school, and so for a short while I was safe, but she would periodically send people in. Here, I went to the police three times. When I went to the place, I found out that she had reviews online about her business. I had women coming to my shop threatening me because they thought I was also doing this with her. I had men showing up in my business all hours of the night refusing to leave. It was just two years of really bad. I also never got paid for the two months I taught. I had students calling me begging for me to help them. It was just a chaotic mess for two years. So the reason I'm here today is not to harm Ms. Good, the reason I'm here today is to protect any other teacher that she's not going to pay. Any other student that's going to take the class and be involved in this illegal activity, and any other business owner that would go into business, and live what I've lived in the last two years. Mr. Alcaraz: Okay. We've exceeded our time, but thank you for speaking. Any questions? None. Thank you. Packet Pg. 522 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Ms. Alcock: Yuri Hee followed by Yufeng Chen. Ms. Hee: My name is a Yuri Hee. Sorry, my English is not very well. I speak very slowly. This is Yuri Hee. I work for the plastic surgeon county center, 16 years. So, I'm licensed permanent makeup instructor, and the 2019 end of the year, I cannot remember exactly the month, Ms. Good, hired me to do the teaching work. So, I did, I only get paid one time. Then after that she disappeared. I didn't get paid, and I ask around. I know she's in jail, but you know, for 14 student there. I cannot leaving them there. So, I didn't get a pay. It's 2018 February, I went to court, and she's in jail. I got a judgment that they can, I cannot give them my pay back because she's in jail. So this time, I'm really struggling because I am single mom, my son in school. So it's really hard for me. I don't know what I say, just the truth right there. The paperwork right there. Mr. Alcaraz: Okay. Thank you. Is there any questions? Thank you very much. Ms. Alcock: Our final speaker is on Webex. Yufeng Chen. They're no longer on. Then that would be all the speakers we have, and chairman, I just want to make one point. We did have another speaker signed up. She's chosen not to speak, but did want to make sure the Commission was aware that she had submitted a letter of opposition that was in your supplemental package. Mr. Alcaraz: All right. This time, I'll ask the applicant to come back up and rebuttal what was said. Ms. Good: I have always been the sole owner of Virginia Permanent Makeup Institute and Advanced Permanent Makeup Institute. I've never partnered with anybody. There's always going to be some student of a bad seed, or some student that wants to say something, and that is the case here, and you know, rounding up, and I've had over 50- Packet Pg. 523 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use 60 students. They've all been very satisfied. They've all graduated. A lot of them have gotten their state board license and to do permanent cosmetics. I also let them work out of the Institution, when I had my conditional use permit, and have my health permit, so that they can actually save money to go out on their own, and I don't charge them hardly anything to do such. Yes, I was in prison, and yes, I came out, and yes, I opened up a school again, and I'm trying to do my best, and I've done pretty good. I just ask that, you don't defer, and I ask that you don't deny. I am proud of myself. Anybody that says I didn't pay them, I paid them, but for a long time, I've been the only teacher and I've had a couple of teachers come in. It didn't work out. One of them, I wasn't even around when they were there because I was away. So I had no controlling over them being paid or anything like that. So that's all I have to say. Mr. Alcaraz: All right. Let me let me ask the commissioners any questions? None. Okay. Just have a seat. I'll close it for public input. This time we'll ask for additional discussion. Mr Plumlee? Mr. Plumlee: I wanted to make a motion to defer. If it's appropriate, I'll wait. If you'd rather have some discussion, that's fine. Mr. Alcaraz: Well, that's up to the commissioners. Any discussion? Ms. Cuellar: It's in tandem to second the motion. Once we learned that there was improper notice. I think it's important that we adhere to that process and defer this for 30 days. Mr. Alcaraz: All right. So I got a motion from Mr. Plumlee to defer and second by Ms. Cuellar. If you could just say briefly the reasons why I'm making this motion. Packet Pg. 524 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Mr. Plumlee: So if there is all of this contest, a feeling that we heard. If we were to bypass the notice requirement, then these folks who appeared not to be your friends could appeal the ultimate approval after counsel is my understanding, and the basis being a defective notice. So it's really for the applicant's own good that the matter be deferred for 30 days, so she meets the legal notice requirement, and cannot be challenged for that reason. I just wanted to put that down. Mr. Alcaraz: Good point. Ms. Alcock: Vote is open. Thank you. By vote of 10:0 Agenda Item #11 has been recommended for 30 day deferral. Mr. Alcaraz: All right. Thank you. That concludes our formal hearing for July 10th. Ms. Cuellar: Thank you very much, Commissioner. Mr. Chairman, that was the last item on the consent agenda. The Planning Commission places the following applications on the consent agenda. Items ##1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14. Mr. Alcaraz: Thank you, Vice Chair. Do I have a motion to approve this? Ms. Cuellar: I move that these items be approved by consent. Mr. Alcaraz: I got a motion by Ms. Cuellar. I need a second. Mr. Coston: I need to just note abstentions. I'm sorry, 4 and 14. Mr. Alcaraz: Thank you. Okay, I got it. Let me get a second. Mr. Coston: Second. Mr. Alcaraz: Second by Mr. Coston. Any abstentions? Packet Pg. 525 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Mr. Coston: Abstaining on items 4 and 14 for reasons set forth in a letter with the city. Mr. Alcaraz: Thank you. Ms. Cuellar: I am abstaining from the item on Pembroke Lake Circle, item #10 for reason stated in the letter that I've provided to the city attorney. Mr. Alcaraz: All right, thank you. Ms. Alcock: The vote is now open. By a vote of 10:0 with an abstention on #four, one abstention on #10, and one abstention on item #14, agenda items #1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 have been recommended for approval. Vote Tally AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Alcaraz AYE Anderson AYE Byler AYE Cromwell ABS Coston AYE Cuellar AYE Estaris AYE Hippen AYE Mauch AYE Parks AYE Plumlee AYE CONDITIONS 1. The Conditional Use Permit for a Tattoo Parlor applies solely to 397 Little Neck Road, Suite 307. 2. A business license for the Tattoo Parlor shall not be issued to the applicant without the approval of the Health Department to ensure compliance with the provisions of Chapter 23-51 of the City Code. 3. This Conditional Use Permit for a Tattoo Parlor shall be limited to the application of permanent makeup. No other form of tattooing shall be permitted. Packet Pg. 526 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use 4. The actual application of permanent makeup shall not be visible from the exterior of the establishment or from the waiting and sales area within the establishment. 5. Any on-site signage for the establishment shall meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, and there shall be no neon, electronic display or similar signage installed on the exterior of the building or in any window, or on the doors. Window signage shall not be permitted. A separate sign permit shall be obtained from the Department of Planning & Community Development for the installation of any new signs. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this application are valid. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Packet Pg. 527 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Virginia Beach Planning Commission August 14, 2024 Public Meeting Item #8 Danielle Good Recommendation: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Discussion Mr. Alcaraz: Thank you. Madam Clerk, the next agenda item #8. Applicant for item #8, please come forward. Hello again. State your name for the record. Ms. Good: My name is Danielle Good, and I'm here for a conditional use permit. Last month, I was deferred it because I didn't have my signs in the correct spot, and I've had my signs in the correct spot now. It's for a permanent makeup school, so I can operate to do also permanent makeup for services for money. Mr. Alcaraz: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Ms. Cuellar: Hi, Ms. Good. We just did want to thank you for putting your signs in the proper location. We wanted to double check on that. So we appreciate it. If there's no comments from the commission, I do find that your application is concurrence with all the requirements. Are all the conditions meet your, do you agree with all the conditions? Ms. Good: Absolutely. I do agree, and I'm happy to follow them as well. Ms. Cuellar: We appreciate that. I move that then I'd like to move that we approve her application. Mr. Alcaraz: All right. I have a motion by Ms. Cuellar. Second by Ms. Hippen. Are there no speakers? No speakers, thank you. Any abstentions? None. Packet Pg. 528 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Madam Clerk: The vote is now open. By a vote of 10:0, item #8 has been recommended for approval. Mr. Alcaraz: All right. Thank you. Vote Tally AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Alcaraz AYE Anderson AYE Byler AYE Cromwell AYE Coston AYE Cuellar AYE Estaris X Hippen AYE Mauch AYE Parks AYE Plumlee AYE CONDITIONS 1. The Conditional Use Permit for a Tattoo Parlor applies solely to 397 Little Neck Road, Suite 303. 2. A business license for the Tattoo Parlor shall not be issued to the applicant without the approval of the Health Department to ensure compliance with the provisions of Chapter 23-51 of the City Code. 3. This Conditional Use Permit for a Tattoo Parlor shall be limited to the application of permanent makeup. No other form of tattooing shall be permitted. 4. The actual application of permanent makeup shall not be visible from the exterior of the establishment or from the waiting and sales area within the establishment. 5. Any on-site signage for the establishment shall meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, and there shall be no neon, electronic display or similar signage installed on the exterior of the building or in any window, or on the doors. Window signage shall not be permitted. A separate sign permit shall be obtained from the Department of Planning & Community Development for the installation of any new signs. Packet Pg. 529 5.L.a From: Madison Byrd Harris Eichholz Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use To: Kristin A. Bauer Subject: FW: Conditional Use Permit Information Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 11:05:27 AM Attachments: image001.png Can you pretty please turn this into a pdf for me Madison Eichholz PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Development Liaison Planner O: 757-385-4621 | D: 757-385-8483 mbharriseichholz@vbgov.com I planning.virginiabeach.gov 2875 Sabre Street, Suite 500 | Virginia Beach, VA 23452 From: Danielle Price <daniellep2244@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 10:03 AM To: Madison Byrd Harris Eichholz <MBHarrisEichholz@vbgov.com> Subject: Re: Conditional Use Permit Information CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I was advised that Ms.Good from Advanced Permanent Makeup is applying for a conditional use permit at her new location 397 Little Neck Road suite 300 Va Beach, Va 23452. I would like to formally oppose her request due to the fact Ms.Good has been operating in the past few years at locations that didn’t have a conditional use permit granted. She continued to practice at one location that wasn’t approved by the Packet Pg. 530 5.L.a committee after receiving a denial. I am aware Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use of this as I was a student at the time and we worked on clients as well as she had others come in a perform services for profit on clients. She is also been operating without a health department license at these locations. I have spoken to the DPOR and there is a current investigation for these events. She is currently performing services at the Little Neck location despite not being approved yet. I want to thank you in advance for your time and attention in this matter and hope that you will deny her application due to failure to comply with the rules set forth by the city . Respectfully submitted , Christina Price Sent from my iPhone On Jul 5, 2024, at 1:43 PM, Danielle Price <daniellep2244@icloud.com> wrote: I couldn’t remember if I sent this sent this so apologize if it is a duplicate. Also she performed permanent makeup at the princess Anne location without permit as I was a student and she has several classes before and after me as well as clients <image0.png> Packet Pg. 531 5.L.a <image1.png> Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Sent from my iPhone On Jul 3, 2024, at 12:38 PM, Madison Byrd Harris Eichholz <MBHarrisEichholz@vbgov.com> wrote: Good afternoon, I have attached the current staff report for her request to operate at 397 Little Neck. It is still in the approval process and therefor the Conditional Use Permit is not issued, and she is not permitted to be operating. There is more information on this request on our Planning Website. She also did not receive a Conditional Use Permit for the other address you mentioned at 3809 Princess Anne Road. Please feel free to submit a letter of opposition to her request stating your concerns so that I can provide that to Planning Commission or come to speak at our meeting at 12 next Wednesday. If you wish to speak let me know and I can provide you with more information. Please let me know if you need anything else. Sincerely, Madison Eichholz PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Development Liaison Planner O: 757-385-4621 | D: 757-385-8483 mbharriseichholz@vbgov.com I planning.virginiabeach.gov 2875 Sabre Street, Suite 500 | Virginia Beach, VA 23452 <image001.png> <2024.07.10_PLN-11_Danielle Good.pdf> Packet Pg. 532 5.L.a From: Madison Byrd Harris Eichholz To: Kristin A. Bauer Subject: FW: Danielle Good Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 2:22:29 PM Attachments: image13.png image14.png image001.png Madison Eichholz PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Development Liaison Planner O: 757-385-4621 | D: 757-385-8483 mbharriseichholz@vbgov.com I planning.virginiabeach.gov 2875 Sabre Street, Suite 500 | Virginia Beach, VA 23452 From: CINDY SCHOTT <schott07@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 3:50 PM To: Madison Byrd Harris Eichholz <MBHarrisEichholz@vbgov.com> Subject: Re: Danielle Good CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Yes I would like to speak but I am very scared . I will send you some evidence as to why. I have received multiple letters from lawyers saying they will sue me if I tell on Danielle good even if it’s true. The men that she services have threatened my life I have video of that too and the drug activity and the people who she associates with puts me and my child in harms way. The very last thing I sent was where she registered her business with you with the same number on her escort sites. If you type in Dani escort va beach all of her sites come up. My lease is finally over!!! I’m feeling a little less afraid . But if I come forward they will get me! Also I posted her princess Ann location with people tattooing there. Even though she was told no. She registered it as a hair salon. But it was a cover for tattooing and prosecution! Sent from my Packet Pg. 533 Packet Pg. 534 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Packet Pg. 535 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Packet Pg. 536 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Packet Pg. 537 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Packet Pg. 538 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Packet Pg. 539 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use Packet Pg. 540 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use 5.L.a Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use > On Jul 3, 2024, at 1:28 PM, Madison Byrd Harris Eichholz <MBHarrisEichholz@vbgov.com> wrote: > > Thank you so much Cindy. I understand your concern about confrontation but if you would like to speak on this item next week at our planning commission meeting either in person or virtually if you are more comfortable, please let me know and I will get you signed up. > > Thank you, > > Madison Eichholz > PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT > Development Liaison Planner > > O: 757-385-4621 | D: 757-385-8483 > mbharriseichholz@vbgov.com I planning.virginiabeach.gov > > 2875 Sabre Street, Suite 500 | Virginia Beach, VA 23452 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: CINDY SCHOTT <schott07@aol.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 1:14 PM > To: Madison Byrd Harris Eichholz <MBHarrisEichholz@vbgov.com> > Subject: Danielle Good > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Packet Pg. 541 5.L.a > > Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use > My name is Cindy Schott and my teacher Danielle Good approached me and ask me to go into business with her to open a school. We came to the zoning commission and I also attended the counsel meeting and we were given permission to do business at 522 south independence Blvd suite 105 va beach va 23452. We started out with 10 students I taught for about 4 weeks. I came to the shop one night to get my schedule book and heard very loud sex sounds coming from our office. the next day I confronted Danielle. She said it was just her boyfriend, about a week later I was tattooing a client and once again they were very loud sex sounds coming from her office. I was mortified after my client left. I confronted Danielle once again, she told me it was just her boyfriend. The next day, I was approached by another business owner in the building and they complained about all these sex sounds coming from Daniel‘s office. I said I’m really sorry she has a new boyfriend and obviously they are very in love. at that point. The business owner told me that was her fifth boyfriend today, and that my business partner indeed was a prostitute . I confronted Danielle good and she told me to mind my own business two days later I was told to leave the building and that she did not want to be in business with me anymore. I am the one that paid for everything of open the business because she was broke, I was a single mom with a child and simply couldn’t walk away from my business and I had also signed a two year lease. So I went to the police the police found multiple prostitution sites with reviews and pictures. I took screen shots of those sites. They told me to go home they would investigate. The next three months was riddled with lawsuits three different letters from three different attorneys. So I hired an attorney. It was at that time that my attorney informed me that Danielle had been in prison for three years for selling meth. It was also at that time that she moved to a second location and took all the students with her. she never conducted business at 522 South independence again, she rented out the rooms but still used my address to conduct business at her second location, where she set up a school and permanent makeup studio. She tried but was unable to get zoning but continued to work there until they evicted her. Danielle good has erased my business from google on three different occasions. Removing years of good reviews I almost went bankrupt. I had to get a protection order at one point to protect myself. 6 months before our lease was up I was contacted by a woman who was hired by Daniel Good to be her teacher. She taught for four months with no pay. She sued Danielle and won. But never received the money. Two months before our lease was up I was contacted by another student of Daniel‘s who had rented a room and was also dealing with the exact same things that I had been dealing with. I am contacting the zoning commission because I would like to protect myself from an illegal activity that she’s associated with, and also try to protect any more small business owners that she goes into business with, and any more teachers that she hires are not going to be paid. I now have a new lease without Danielle Goods name on it. I am insured, I am licensed, I have a health inspection and I am trying to get my life back on track without anymore threats to my business family and well being. I have screen shots of all conversations about the prostitution. I have all the threatening letters from the attorneys, all the lawsuits all the harassment. Everything has been recorded. If you need proof of these, I will gladly make you copies thank you in advance for what you do for the city of Virginia Beach. I am grateful for being allowed to conduct business, I am now a paramedical tattoo artist, helping cancer patients with 3-D areolas and burn victims with scars, etc. etc. may God bless you, as you navigate this chaotic mess. I would have reached out sooner, but with all the threatening letters from the lawyers, I was afraid. > Sincerely Cynthia Schott > 757-754-7085 > PS I reached out to the commonwealth attorneys office yesterday and relayed everything that I have just told you. Packet Pg. 542 5.L.a From: Madison Byrd Harris Eichholz Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use To: Kristin A. Bauer Subject: FW: Danielle Good Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 1:20:48 PM Madison Eichholz PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Development Liaison Planner O: 757-385-4621 | D: 757-385-8483 mbharriseichholz@vbgov.com I planning.virginiabeach.gov 2875 Sabre Street, Suite 500 | Virginia Beach, VA 23452 -----Original Message----- From: CINDY SCHOTT <schott07@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 1:14 PM To: Madison Byrd Harris Eichholz <MBHarrisEichholz@vbgov.com> Subject: Danielle Good CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Cindy Schott and my teacher Danielle Good approached me and ask me to go into business with her to open a school. We came to the zoning commission and I also attended the counsel meeting and we were given permission to do business at 522 south independence Blvd suite 105 va beach va 23452. We started out with 10 students I taught for about 4 weeks. I came to the shop one night to get my schedule book and heard very loud sex sounds coming from our office. the next day I confronted Danielle. She said it was just her boyfriend, about a week later I was tattooing a client and once again they were very loud sex sounds coming from her office. I was mortified after my client left. I confronted Danielle once again, she told me it was just her boyfriend. The next day, I was approached by another business owner in the building and they complained about all these sex sounds coming from Daniel‘s office. I said I’m really sorry she has a new boyfriend and obviously they are very in love. at that point. The business owner told me that was her fifth boyfriend today, and that my business partner indeed was a prostitute . I confronted Danielle good and she told me to mind my own business two days later I was told to leave the building and that she did not want to be in business with me anymore. I am the one that paid for everything of open the business because she was broke, I was a single mom with a child and simply couldn’t walk away from my business and I had also signed a two year lease. So I went to the police the police found multiple prostitution sites with reviews and pictures. I took screen shots of those sites. They told me to go home they would investigate. The next three months was riddled with lawsuits three different letters from three different attorneys. So I hired an attorney. It was at that time that my attorney informed me that Danielle had been in prison for three years for selling meth. It was also at that time that she moved to a second location and took all the students with her. she never conducted business at 522 South independence again, she rented out the rooms but still used my address to conduct business at her second location, where she set up a school and permanent makeup studio. She tried but was unable to get zoning but continued to work there until they evicted her. Danielle good has erased my business from google on three different occasions. Removing years of good reviews I almost went bankrupt. I had to get a protection order at one point to protect myself. 6 months before our lease was up I was contacted by a woman who was hired by Daniel Good to be her teacher. She taught for four months with no pay. She sued Danielle and won. But never received the money. Two months before our lease was up I was contacted by another student of Daniel‘s who had rented a room and was also dealing with the exact same things that I had been dealing with. I am contacting the zoning commission because I would like to protect myself from an illegal activity that she’s associated with, and also try to protect any more small business owners that she goes into business with, and any more teachers that she hires are Packet Pg. 543 5.L.a not going to be paid. I now have a new lease without Danielle Goods name on it. I am insured, I am licensed, I have a health inspection and I am trying to get my life back on track without anymore threats to my business family and Attachment: 06_ARF Package for Danielle Good (4207 : Danielle Good (Applicant) Little Neck Office Park (Property Owner) Conditional Use well being. I have screen shots of all conversations about the prostitution. I have all the threatening letters from the attorneys, all the lawsuits all the harassment. Everything has been recorded. If you need proof of these, I will gladly make you copies thank you in advance for what you do for the city of Virginia Beach. I am grateful for being allowed to conduct business, I am now a paramedical tattoo artist, helping cancer patients with 3-D areolas and burn victims with scars, etc. etc. may God bless you, as you navigate this chaotic mess. I would have reached out sooner, but with all the threatening letters from the lawyers, I was afraid. Sincerely Cynthia Schott 757-754-7085 PS I reached out to the commonwealth attorneys office yesterday and relayed everything that I have just told you. Packet Pg. 544 ORDINANCE TO ADOPT A NEW OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, WHICH SHALL REPLACE THE EXISTING OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, DUE TO A CHANGE IN THE COMPUTER MAPPING FORMAT USED TO STORE THE MAP DATA AND DEVELOP THE PRINTED COPIES. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE ZONING DISTRICT OR THEIR EXISTING LOCATIONS BETWEEN THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED MAPS. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of . APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Manager City Attorney’s Office Packet Pg. 545 5.L.a Attachment: 08_ARF Package for City of Virignia Beach - Zoning Map Amendment (4209 : City of Virginia Beach - An ordinance to adopt a new CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT A NEW OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, WHICH SHALL REPLACE THE EXISTING OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, DUE TO A CHANGE IN THE COMPUTER MAPPING FORMAT USED TO STORE THE MAP DATA AND DEVELOP THE PRINTED COPIES. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE ZONING DISTRICTS OR THEIR EXISTING LOCATIONS BETWEEN THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED MAPS. MEETING DATE: September 17, 2024  Background: The Zoning Administration is proposing to update the current city zoning map software from ArcMap 10.8 to ArcGIS Pro 3.3 to improve staff maintenance processes and user experience. The current software, ArcMap 10.8, is currently being phased out completely, ultimately making this upgrade a necessity. Additionally, the new software, ArcGIS Pro 3.3, will streamline map maintenance processes by combining the zoning layer shape and instrument number reference MXDs into a singular MXD.  Considerations: The zoning districts and their data will not be altered by the upgrade in map software. Current map software is outdated and unable to meet the needs of zoning and tech staff. Further details pertaining to the application, as well as Staff’s evaluation, are provided in the attached Staff Report. The link to access the current zoning grid map is: https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/virginia-beach-departments- docs/planning/Zoning/Maps/zoning-grid-reference-map.pdf. There is no known opposition to this request.  Recommendation: On August 14, 2024, the Planning Commission passed a motion to recommend approval of this item on the Consent Agenda, by a recorded vote of 10-0.  Attachments: Staff Report Ordinance Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing Packet Pg. 546 5.L.a City of Virginia Beach Page 2 of 2 Attachment: 08_ARF Package for City of Virignia Beach - Zoning Map Amendment (4209 : City of Virginia Beach - An ordinance to adopt a new Recommended Action: Staff recommends Approval. Planning Commission recommends Approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: Packet Pg. 547 5.L.a Agenda Item 1 Applicant: City of Virginia Beach Attachment: 08_ARF Package for City of Virignia Beach - Zoning Map Amendment (4209 : City of Virginia Beach - An ordinance to adopt a new Planning Commission Public Hearing: August 14, 2024 Zoning Map Amendment Request An Ordinance to adopt a new Oﬃcial Zoning Map shall replace the existing Oﬃcial Zoning Map due to a change in the computer mapping format used to store the map data and develop the printed copies. This change will improve map maintenance processes and streamline updates to the maps. The action will update the oﬃcial zoning map software and address underlying accessibility issues but will not change the actual map content regarding zoning information. Summary of Request Resolution of the City of Virginia Beach in accordance with Section 102 (b)(3) of the City Zoning Ordinance to replace certain oﬃcial zoning maps without change in oﬃcial zoning designation, to facilitate their software upgrade as needed. The current software utilized by the City’s zoning map is outdated and requires an upgrade. It is requested that the underlying map software be upgraded from ArcMap 10.8 to ArcGIS Pro 3.3 to address current eﬃciency and usability issues. The existence of ArcMap 10.8 is currently being phased out, so the need for this upgrade is unavoidable. The current software has begun the sunset process with an anticipated end in the second quarter of ﬁscal year 2026. The newer software is faster, will allow map maintenance to be more eﬃcient, and the user experience more pleasant. Additionally, section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, a federal law, requires all state agencies to make their websites, software, information technology, and other digital assets be accessible to individuals with disabilities. This requirement applies to all the City’s online documents; therefore, the oﬃcial zoning map must be updated to comply with the necessary accessibility requirements. No information within or related to the zoning map will be altered through these updates. The software upgrade and features needed to ensure the map achieves accessibility goals will be added while the actual content of the map and its information will not change in any way. Recommendation Staﬀ recommends approval of this update. The intent of this request is to upgrade map software and improve map accessibility, the content and information within the map will remain the same. City of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 1 page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 548 5.L.a Attachment: 08_ARF Package for City of Virignia Beach - Zoning Map Amendment (4209 : City of Virginia Beach - An ordinance to adopt a new Virginia Beach Planning Commission August 14, 2024 Public Meeting Item # 1 City of Virginia Beach – Zoning Map Amendment Recommendation: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Discussion Ms. Cuellar: Thank you very much. Today, we have five items on the consent agenda. These are applications that are recommended for approval by staff, and the Planning Commission concurred, and there are no speakers signed up in opposition. The first agenda item is agenda item #1, City of Virginia Beach. We have our zoning administrator, Mr. Kemp, speaking on behalf of this agenda item. Mr. Kemp: Thank you, Chairman, Vice-Chair, members of the Commission. This first item is one you don't see very often, but it is the adoption of a new zoning map. Section 102(b)(3) gives City Council the authority to adopt a new zoning map, but I will say that nothing substantive can change. We are able to correct omissions or errors, but no zoning districts or boundaries are changed, so it will be the same zoning map that exists just in a new format. The reason we are doing this is we have new software. We are updating from ArcMap 10.8 to ArcGIS 3.3, and we are also making it ADA compliant. We have come a long way where we used to have maps, and have someone sit there and color in the zoning districts. Now, we are entering an era where our zoning maps will be interactive and have data embedded in them. It'll have links to city council action. It'll make it more user friendly, easier to read, and you'll better be able to distinguish information. The new software will make it exponentially faster and more reliable, and the PDF that's posted online will be ADA compliant. It will also be a layer on VB maps, which is the software that staff most uses to research and the public has access to. So that will increase the amount of information available. This is a yearlong effort that Planning embarked on with IT. We Packet Pg. 549 5.L.a Attachment: 08_ARF Package for City of Virignia Beach - Zoning Map Amendment (4209 : City of Virginia Beach - An ordinance to adopt a new are very happy with the outcome, and think that it will be a better, more usable, friendly, ADA compliant document. So with that, I stand by for any questions. Ms. Cuellar: If there are no questions or opposition, I'll recommend this go on the consent agenda. Mr. Kemp: Thank you, Vice Chair. Ms. Cuellar: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, that was the last item on the consent agenda. The Planning Commission will now place four items on the consent agenda. Items #1, 4, 7, and 11. Mr. Alcaraz: Thank you, Vice Chair. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as read by the Vice Chair? Motion by Mr. Plumlee, and second by Ms. Hippen. Madam Clerk: The vote is now open. By a vote of 10 to 0, consent agenda items #1,4, 7, and 11 have been recommended for approval. Mr. Alcaraz: All right, thank you. Those items that were approved, you can get with your planning representative, and they'll tell you when you'll be seen at City Council. Thank you for coming. Packet Pg. 550 5.L.a Attachment: 08_ARF Package for City of Virignia Beach - Zoning Map Amendment (4209 : City of Virginia Beach - An ordinance to adopt a new Vote Tally AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Alcaraz AYE Anderson AYE Byler AYE Cromwell AYE Coston AYE Cuellar AYE Estaris ABS Hippen AYE Mauch AYE Parks AYE Plumlee AYE Packet Pg. 551 Packet Pg. 552 5.L.a Attachment: 08_ARF Package for City of Virignia Beach - Zoning Map Amendment (4209 : City of Virginia Beach - An ordinance to adopt a new