Local Politics
  1. Home
  2. US
  3. Virginia
  4. Virginia Beach
  5. Issues

Corporate Landing Parkway Bulk Storage Yard

At a glance

  • What: Two linked requests by Corporate Landing Parkway Development LLC for a 32.36-acre I-1 light industrial parcel in the Corporate Landing Business Park (agenda items 4 and 5): a modification of proffers and a conditional use permit for an outdoor bulk storage yard for a roofing and glazing contractor (TST Roofing and Glazing), plus a roughly 33,000 square foot warehouse and two-story office allowed by right.
  • Where it stands: The Planning Commission recommended approval 10-0 on October 14, 2026. The City Council makes the final decision.
  • What's next: A City Council hearing, date to be set by staff.

The proposal

  • A 2021 proffer prohibits exterior storage except during construction, so the proffers must be modified before the permit can be considered.
  • The yard would hold construction materials, roofing supplies, tools, equipment, vehicles and trailers, behind the building and out of view of the road. The company has about 160 employees and received an EDIP grant (as the applicant's attorney, Jerry Harris, described it).
  • Fencing deviation: 8-foot decorative perforated metal along the northwest and southeast sides, and 8-foot black vinyl-coated chain link with privacy slats on the east side, behind existing trees. Category 1 landscaping would ring the site.
  • The Virginia Beach Development Authority backed the plan unanimously on September 8. Staff found it consistent with the Imagine VB 2040 plan and with naval flight operations (the site is in the greater-than-75 noise zone), and recommended approval.
  • Proffers offered at the hearing: no third-party storage, no standalone storage business, and stored items never taller than the fence. A condition keeps the yard out of a 75-foot buffer area unless it is formally vacated through a site plan; the attorney said the conceptual plan and an older approved site plan disagree on this and will be reconciled before the City Council. The applicant is also paying under a cost-participation agreement for a new stormwater pond next to the site.

Concerns

  • Commissioner Camp asked in the informal session what exactly was being approved given two exhibits with different boundaries, and why a decision council made only a few years ago, and a similar request last month in the same part of the city, should be revisited. Staff said the earlier change covered a larger area and the Development Authority found this site hidden from the right of way; the applicant argued each application stands on its own merits.
  • Two residents spoke. One first-time speaker thought it was a public storage facility, said the area already has many storage units, and suggested a park instead; after commissioners clarified that it is a contractor's own yard set back from General Booth Boulevard, he said he still preferred another use. The other, who works nearby, said the park's aim is less industrial storage, worried the rule change would let later owners store less attractive things, and objected to chain link fencing. Staff said any future user would still have to meet the same conditions.
  • One commissioner said at the informal session that he would have voted no if it went on consent, and it was moved to the regular agenda.

Decision

  • Commissioner Skunover moved approval; seconded by Commissioner Moriani. Recorded vote 10-0 to recommend approval.

Sources

Discussion time

About 32 minutes across 1 meeting (from transcript timestamps; approximate).

Meeting Minutes
2026-10-14 - Planning Commission 32

Log