CHESAPEAKE — After denying a natural gas compressor station project that had drawn the ire of many Chesapeake residents, city leaders reversed course Tuesday and approved it.
On June 17, Chesapeake City Council denied a request from Virginia Natural Gas to push back a vote on its project, which was a rezoning request of 23 acres on South Military Highway to create a light industrial district for a new compressor station. The goal is to help facilitate the movement and maintain pressure of natural gas as it moves through existing pipeline. Only council members Jeff Bunn, Debbie Ritter and Daniel Whitaker voted in support. Mayor Rick West was absent.
But following a request from Newins, Whitaker and Ritter, council reversed course at the June 24 meeting by reviving it and putting it on a future agenda for reconsideration. West was also absent from that meeting.
It was on Tuesday’s agenda, and council members ultimately approved the project along partisan and racial lines. Ella Ward, Pat King and Les Smith — who are Black council members and backed by local Democrats — objected, citing environmental racism concerns with the project’s location and proximity to minority neighborhoods as well as data referencing health-related concerns. King also said the Department of Environmental Quality has determined the project is exempt from the some permitting requirements regulating air quality and pollution.
“To vote for this project would be a violation of my moral compass and my ethical standards,” King said.
Applicants said the need for such a project is primarily for the coldest days of the year when demand for natural gas peaks. The compressor station would regulate the pressure to maintain the flow of natural gas.
Whitaker said the project is “vital infrastructure.”
“Quite frankly, I don’t know as a parent, citizen, and somebody who’s here to represent all of y’all as well, how I could tell a family ‘hey, you’re going to get a cold shower,’ or ‘hey, your heat, you’re going to be cold during peak demands,'” he said.
City Hall chambers were full Tuesday night with a lengthy agenda of planning-related items to consider. For that reason, council members voted to suspend the rules of the typical public hearing process and instead allow up to one hour per item for public comment, discussion and deliberations, which limited the number of people who could voice support or opposition.
Representatives from environmental justice advocacy groups, like the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, also rallied outside City Hall with signs.
Project applicants were not present at the June 17 meeting, but they attended the meetings on June 24 and Tuesday. Vice Mayor John de Triquet previously told The Virginian-Pilot that he denied the project on June 17 because applicants weren’t present to discuss, but then voted in support once they attended.
The applicants tout the project as environmentally sound and focused on sustainability and resiliency. In a memo about the project, city staff said the proposed station, which would be housed inside a small building to minimize noise, would be continuously monitored with proper detection and fire suppression systems. Planning Director Jimmy McNamara previously said no additional pipelines would be added or removed if approved.
Applicants and supporters also said Tuesday that the project is an ideal location due to the existing pipeline infrastructure in place since before the city’s founding in the 1960s. The property, 2512 South Military Highway, is east of Bainbridge Boulevard and west of Campostella Road.
Opponents who did speak Tuesday cited various concerns about the impact of the project, especially to communities like the nearby Eva Gardens, Portlock and Crestwood neighborhoods with significant minority populations. Others questioned why council members changed their vote, sharing concerns of trust and transparency.
“These are families already burdened by chronic flooding, poor air quality, industrial run-off, and now we’re considering adding even more toxins like benzine and methane to the air they already breathe. These are not abstract hazards,” one resident said. “Here we are again — same project, same danger, same disregard for public health. The only thing that changed, apparently, were your votes.”
Despite the council’s vote of approval, residents can still weigh in with more public comment. An application for the project is currently pending approval from the State Corporation Commission, with a public comment period spanning to Aug. 5. Those wishing to submit comments can visit the SCC website, and the application number is PUR-2025-00021.
Natalie Anderson, 757-732-1133, [email protected]
