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

Hook Lane Subdivision Variance

At a glance

  • What: Request by LBC Ventures LLC for a subdivision variance (sections 4.4B and D) so a 36,624 square foot parcel in the Beachwood neighborhood (R-7.5, Shore Drive corridor overlay, District 9) can be split into three lots, two of which lack street frontage and direct public street access. The existing 1940 house would be removed.
  • Where it stands: The Planning Commission recommended approval 9-1 on October 14, 2026, as modified: staff condition 6 (house design) was dropped and condition 1 (access) was changed to match the applicant's submitted plan. The City Council makes the final decision.
  • What's next: A City Council hearing, date to be set by staff.

The proposal

  • Lots 7A and 7B would be reached by a 29-foot private access easement; lot 7C would meet all R-7.5 standards and face Hook Lane. The parcel also fronts Northampton Boulevard, an access-controlled road where driveways are not allowed.
  • History cited by staff and the applicant: platted in 1902 at over an acre; the state took part of it in 1962 for Northampton Boulevard and the city took more in 1981 to widen Hook Lane.
  • Staff supported the variance and the Beachwood Civic League sent a letter of support. No speakers registered.

The disagreement

  • Staff condition 1 would bar a separate driveway for lot 7C and require all three lots to use the shared easement, following the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines, which favor shared access (fewer conflict points and less pavement) and side-loading or detached garages. Staff condition 6 would require the Hook Lane house front to be at least 5 feet wider than the garage, with the garage set back 5 feet.
  • The applicant's attorney, Eddie Berdon (name as heard), said 46 of 48 homes in the neighborhood have neither feature, that the guidelines are aspirational, and that the conditions would force a custom house design. He accepted all other conditions.
  • Comprehensive planning administrator Hank Morrison said the guidelines were adopted in 2002 and are aspirational; most of the neighborhood was built earlier, mostly from the 1940s on.
  • Commissioner Plumbley asked staff to check that the notice sign was posted. Commissioner Camp questioned whether the condition wording matched the exhibit and asked when the guidelines were adopted.

Decision

  • Commissioner Skunover moved approval with condition 6 removed and condition 1 modified to the applicant's plan; seconded by Commissioner Plumbley. Recorded vote 9-1 to recommend approval as modified. The captions do not show who voted no.
  • It was pulled from the consent agenda at the applicant's request.

Sources

Discussion time

About 26 minutes across 1 meeting (from transcript timestamps; approximate).

Meeting Minutes
2026-10-14 - Planning Commission 26

Log