1. Considering data center ordinance changes under consideration in Chesapeake, what policies would you support regarding the siting of data centers and the management of associated impacts, such as setbacks, noise, pollution, water use, energy demand, backup generators, environmental impacts, and infrastructure costs?
Answer: I believe Chesapeake must approach data center development with extreme caution. My position begins with a simple principle: economic development should improve the quality of life of Chesapeake residents, not compromise their health, environment, infrastructure, or neighborhoods. I have listened to residents across Chesapeake, and the message I continue to hear is clear: they do not want our city transformed into another major data center corridor. As a candidate for City Council, I believe it is my responsibility to listen to those concerns and act accordingly.
I support the decision to eliminate the by right allowance for data centers under the city’s existing zoning framework. Facilities of this size, intensity, and potential environmental impact should never be permitted without public review and direct accountability from City Council. I also support the decision to defer opening additional areas of Chesapeake to data center development while the city develops a comprehensive policy.
The Planning Commission’s proposed amendments represented important additional protections. The Commission recommended increasing the proposed setbacks from 100 feet from a property line and 500 feet from an existing residence to 1,320 feet, or one-quarter mile, from the property line and 2,640 feet, or one half mile, from existing residences. The Commission also recommended lowering allowable low-frequency noise levels to 55 dBC at night and 60 dBC during the day and applying those protections to all neighboring property types, rather than limiting them only to residential properties. Additional language emphasized protecting existing communities and minimizing infrastructure impacts.
Although City Council did not adopt the Planning Commission amendments and instead placed a temporary eight-month moratorium on data centers while work continues on a final policy, I believe this period should be used to strengthen Chesapeake’s protections, not weaken them. If elected, the policies I would advocate for include:
1. Strong siting restrictions and meaningful setbacks. I support, at minimum, the Planning Commission’s recommended one-quarter-mile setback from property lines and one-half-mile setback from existing residences. I would also support additional protections for schools, childcare facilities, healthcare facilities, parks, environmentally sensitive areas, wetlands, conservation areas, and other locations where industrial development could negatively affect residents or natural resources. Setbacks should be viewed as minimum protections, not an automatic entitlement to build. Meaning a setback requirement should not, by itself, mean that a proposed data center is appropriate for a particular location.
2. No by-right data centers. Every proposed data center should require a conditional use permit and a public hearing before City Council. Residents deserve to know what is being proposed in their communities and to have a meaningful opportunity to influence the decision before a project is approved. I would support robust community engagement requirements before an application reaches City Council, including neighborhood meetings, accessible project information, disclosure of anticipated environmental and infrastructure impacts, and restrictions on nondisclosure agreements that prevent the public from understanding projects being considered in their community.
3. Strict and enforceable noise protections. Noise is not simply a nuisance issue; chronic noise can become a quality-of-life and public health concern. Data centers operate continuously, and cooling equipment, mechanical systems, electrical infrastructure, and backup generators can produce persistent sound, including low frequency noise. I support the Planning Commission’s recommendation of maximum low-frequency noise levels of 55 dBC at night and 60 dBC during the day, applicable to all neighboring properties. I would also require independent pre-construction sound modeling, post-construction testing, continuous monitoring where appropriate, publicly accessible compliance information, and meaningful enforcement when facilities exceed allowable limits. Noise-generating equipment should also be located and oriented away from homes, schools, parks, and other sensitive uses whenever possible.
4. Protection of Chesapeake’s water resources. Data centers can require significant amounts of water depending upon the cooling technology used. Chesapeake should not approve projects without knowing exactly how much potable water they will require and how that demand could affect residents, businesses, agriculture, emergency capacity, and future growth. I would require applicants to disclose projected annual and peak water consumption and identify their cooling technology before approval. Chesapeake should prioritize technologies that minimize potable water consumption, encourage closed loop or other water efficient cooling systems, and require water conservation and reuse wherever feasible. Our residents should never be asked to conserve water while extraordinarily water-intensive industrial facilities receive preferential access to our resources.
5. Energy demand and grid impacts. The extraordinary electricity demands associated with large data centers deserve serious scrutiny. Before approving a project, Chesapeake should understand its projected energy consumption, necessary transmission infrastructure, effects on grid reliability, and potential long term costs to residents. I support requiring comprehensive energy impact assessments and coordination with utilities before approval. I would also encourage renewable and clean energy procurement, energy efficiency standards, and technologies that reduce peak demand. Most importantly, residential customers and small businesses should not be forced to subsidize infrastructure upgrades necessitated primarily by large data center developments.
6. Backup generators, air pollution, and public health. Large data center campuses may require numerous diesel powered backup generators. While those generators may operate primarily during emergencies and testing, their cumulative emissions and noise must be considered. As a healthcare professional, I view environmental policy through a public health lens. Air quality matters, particularly for children, older adults, and people with respiratory or cardiovascular conditions. I would require applicants to disclose the number, type, capacity, emissions profile, testing schedule, and anticipated operation of backup generators. Chesapeake should establish limits on testing hours, require best available emissions control technology, encourage cleaner backup technologies as they become feasible, and evaluate cumulative emissions rather than treating each generator independently.
7. Developers must pay the infrastructure costs they create. This is one of my strongest positions. Chesapeake taxpayers should not subsidize private data center development. If a data center requires road improvements, electrical infrastructure, utility expansion, water or sewer improvements, stormwater facilities, emergency service capacity, or other public infrastructure, the developer should bear the costs attributable to that project. Before approving any data center, City Council should receive a transparent fiscal impact analysis comparing projected tax revenue with the full short and long term public costs associated with the development. Promises of increased tax revenue are not enough. We need to know the net benefit to Chesapeake after infrastructure, environmental, public safety, utility, and other costs are considered.
8. Protect existing communities first. My position ultimately comes down to whom local government is supposed to serve. Chesapeake’s residents have already invested in their homes, neighborhoods, farms, businesses, and communities. We should not force existing residents to absorb industrial noise, additional pollution, environmental risks, infrastructure costs, or dramatic changes to their quality of life simply to accommodate a new industry. I support the eight month moratorium because Chesapeake needs me to get this policy right. However, the moratorium should result in stronger protections and greater transparency, not simply a roadmap for where the industry can expand next. I am not convinced that large scale data center development is the right economic development strategy for Chesapeake. The burden should therefore be on the applicant to demonstrate that a project provides a genuine, measurable, long term benefit to our city without shifting environmental, health, infrastructure, or financial costs onto our residents. I have listened. Chesapeake residents are telling us they want their neighborhoods, environment, infrastructure, and quality of life protected. I intend to be their voice on City Council.
2. How would you promote making more clean energy available to residents, businesses, and institutions in Chesapeake? What is your position on siting of battery energy storage systems (BESS) and utility scale solar? What do you believe the City can do to promote rooftop, balcony, and parking lot solar?
Answer: I support expanding clean and renewable energy in Chesapeake because reducing our carbon footprint is an investment in our environment, our public health, and the long-term resilience of our city. I believe solar energy should be a significant part of that strategy. The City can encourage greater access to rooftop, balcony, and parking lot solar by reviewing unnecessary permitting barriers, streamlining approval processes, educating residents and businesses about available incentives, and exploring solar installations on appropriate City owned buildings and parking facilities. We should also encourage partnerships that make solar more accessible to residents who may not be able to afford the upfront costs.
I support responsibly sited utility scale solar, but location matters. Projects should protect environmentally sensitive areas, agricultural land, neighborhoods, and Chesapeake’s character while providing meaningful benefits to our community.
I am more cautious about Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). Battery storage can help make renewable energy more reliable, but large scale systems also present legitimate public safety concerns, including thermal runaway events that can be extremely difficult to extinguish and may require firefighters to focus on containment while the affected batteries burn. Before approving BESS facilities, I would want rigorous fire safety standards, appropriate setbacks, emergency response plans, environmental protections, and meaningful consultation with our Fire Department and surrounding communities.
Most importantly, I believe residents deserve a real voice in decisions that affect their neighborhoods. I am running to represent the people of Chesapeake, not to predetermine every land use decision before hearing from them. I support clean energy and reducing our carbon footprint, but our transition must also be safe, responsible, transparent, and responsive to the citizens we serve.
3. Between 2014 and 2021, the City had a net loss of over 800 acres of trees, largely to development. What polices will you support to protect tree canopy during development? Would you support increasing the tree canopy requirement on site plans for low-density single-family home development?
Answer: As Chesapeake continues to grow, we have to be intentional about protecting the natural resources that make our city a great place to live. Losing more than 800 acres of trees in just seven years is concerning, particularly as we face increased development, flooding, extreme heat, and stormwater challenges.
I support stronger policies that prioritize preserving mature trees during development, require thoughtful replacement when removal is unavoidable, and encourage developers to incorporate existing tree canopy and green space into site design rather than clearing first and replacing later.
I would also support increasing tree canopy requirements for low density single family developments, provided the requirements are practical, environmentally sound, and do not unnecessarily increase the cost of housing. Smart growth means finding that balance.
Trees are not simply an aesthetic amenity. They help manage stormwater, reduce flooding and heat, improve air quality, and protect the character of our neighborhoods. As a Councilwoman, I will support responsible development that allows Chesapeake to grow without sacrificing the environment and quality of life we are responsible for protecting for future generations.
4. Our region faces a significant shortage of housing that is affordable to people earning the area median income or less. How would you promote building more housing in communities that maintains a high quality of life and a healthy and livable environment?
Answer: Housing affordability is one of the most pressing challenges facing Chesapeake and Hampton Roads. I believe people who work in our city should have a realistic opportunity to live here, including our teachers, first responders, healthcare workers, young families, seniors, and other working residents.
I support increasing our housing supply through responsible, smart growth. That includes exploring the redevelopment of underutilized commercial properties, encouraging a variety of housing options at different price points, and reviewing zoning and development policies that unnecessarily drive up the cost of housing.
However, affordability cannot come at the expense of quality of life. New development must be supported by adequate roads, schools, drainage, utilities, green space, and public safety resources. We should also protect tree canopy, environmentally sensitive areas, and established neighborhoods.
I want Chesapeake to grow thoughtfully, not simply grow for the sake of growth. My goal is balanced development that creates attainable housing while protecting the healthy, safe, and livable communities that make people want to call Chesapeake home in the first place.
5. Chesapeake continues to experience flooding, sea level rise, and increasingly intense rainfall. What are your priorities for improving flood resilience to protect neighborhoods, businesses, and natural resources?
Answer: Flooding is not just an infrastructure issue. It is a public safety, economic, environmental, and quality of life issue. As a healthcare professional, I also recognize the public health consequences when families repeatedly experience flooding, property damage, mold, displacement, and financial hardship.
My priority is to make Chesapeake more proactive rather than simply responding after neighborhoods flood. I support investing in modern stormwater and drainage infrastructure, addressing chronic flooding areas, maintaining ditches and drainage systems, and incorporating updated rainfall and sea level rise projections into our long term planning and development decisions.
We also need to recognize that some of our best flood protection already exists in nature. Trees absorb rainfall and their root systems help water soak into the ground instead of immediately becoming stormwater runoff. Preserving tree canopy and reducing unnecessary clearing can decrease the amount and speed of water entering our drainage systems during heavy rainfall. Wetlands and other natural areas can also capture and temporarily store stormwater, helping reduce pressure on neighborhoods and infrastructure.
That is why I support protecting wetlands, preserving mature trees and tree canopy, expanding green infrastructure, and carefully considering development in environmentally sensitive areas and areas prone to flooding. We cannot continue removing natural protections, replacing them with impervious surfaces such as concrete and pavement, and then wonder why our drainage systems are overwhelmed. New development should be designed so that it does not worsen flooding for existing neighborhoods.
I will also advocate for Chesapeake to aggressively pursue state and federal resilience funding so the entire burden does not fall on local taxpayers. Protecting our homes, businesses, natural resources, and infrastructure requires us to plan today for the Chesapeake we will face tomorrow.
6. One of the top resident priorities is "Preservation of large areas of open space and forest.*" How should Chesapeake balance continued economic growth with the preservation of open space, forests, wetlands, farms and rural character? How would you expand the City's urban forestry and natural lands management, such planting and maintaining trees, managing invasive plants, maintaining natural trails, and training staff on best practices? * As reported in the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Master Plan study.
Answer: Chesapeake does not have to choose between economic growth and protecting the natural resources that make our city special. We need responsible growth that recognizes our forests, wetlands, farms, waterways, and rural communities as assets worth protecting.
I support directing growth toward areas where infrastructure can appropriately support it while being more intentional about preserving large areas of open space, environmentally sensitive land, wetlands, and Chesapeake’s rural character. Development decisions should consider the cumulative impact of removing forests and replacing natural land with impervious surfaces. Once mature forests, wetlands, and farmland are lost, they can be extremely difficult to restore.
I also support strengthening Chesapeake’s urban forestry and natural lands management. That means planting more trees on public property and in areas with limited tree canopy, but it also means maintaining the trees we already have. We should develop strong maintenance plans, manage invasive plants that threaten native vegetation, preserve and maintain natural trails, and ensure City staff receive training in current forestry, conservation, and land management practices. I would also support partnerships with community organizations, schools, environmental groups, and volunteers to help expand these efforts.
Preserving our natural environment is also part of our infrastructure strategy. Trees help absorb rainfall and reduce stormwater runoff. Wetlands naturally store water and provide protection during heavy rain and flooding. Forests improve air and water quality while providing wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.
Economic development should improve our quality of life, not require us to sacrifice it. As Chesapeake grows, I want us to measure success not simply by how much we build, but by how responsibly we grow and how much of Chesapeake’s natural character we preserve for the generations that come after us.
7. Considering that many daily trips that people make are over short distances, often less than 1 or 2 miles, how would you work to make our streets safer and more connected for people walking, biking, and using mobility devices?
Answer: Transportation infrastructure is about more than moving cars. It is about moving people safely. In a city as geographically large and diverse as Chesapeake, we will always need our road network, but residents should not have to get into a car simply to travel a mile to a park, school, neighborhood business, or community facility.
Chesapeake already has a framework to move us in the right direction. The City’s Trails and Connectivity Plan, adopted in 2024, calls for an integrated network of sidewalks, shared use paths, bikeways, trails, and other connections that are accessible to residents of all ages and abilities. Chesapeake 2045 goes even further by calling for a safe and equitable active transportation network, closing sidewalk gaps, installing crosswalks, and incorporating walking and biking infrastructure into new development and future roadway projects.
As a Councilwoman, I would focus on turning those plans into visible improvements in our neighborhoods. I support prioritizing sidewalk gaps, particularly around schools, parks, senior communities, commercial areas, and neighborhoods where residents currently have few safe alternatives to driving. I also support safer and more visible crosswalks, accessible curb ramps, appropriate lighting, protected bicycle infrastructure where feasible, and shared use paths that connect neighborhoods rather than ending abruptly.
Accessibility must be central to these decisions. A sidewalk that ends unexpectedly or lacks an accessible curb ramp is an inconvenience for some residents, but it can become a significant barrier for someone using a wheelchair, walker, or other mobility device. Chesapeake’s own planning for an aging population recognizes the importance of sidewalks, curb cuts, crosswalks, and accessible infrastructure connecting residents to medical, recreational, employment, and other community destinations.
I would also expect new development to contribute to connectivity. When we approve new neighborhoods and commercial developments, we should be thinking beyond the boundaries of an individual project and asking how people will safely walk or bike from that development to the surrounding community. Chesapeake 2045 specifically recommends incorporating active transportation facilities into new developments and City projects when they can connect neighborhoods with schools, libraries, commercial areas, parks, transit routes, and other destinations.
Finally, we need to prioritize investments based on safety, connectivity, and demonstrated community need while aggressively pursuing state and federal transportation grants to leverage local dollars. Chesapeake already has a Citywide Sidewalk Installation project intended to improve safety and connectivity between neighborhoods. I want to build upon that work and ensure our investments close meaningful gaps rather than creating isolated pieces of infrastructure.
For me, this is about giving people choices. A child should be able to walk or bike safely to a nearby park. A senior should be able to walk through their community without encountering an inaccessible intersection. A person using a wheelchair should be able to travel a continuous accessible route. Creating safer, more connected streets makes Chesapeake healthier, more accessible, and more livable for everyone.
8. How would you improve access to public transportation in our City?
Answer: Improving public transportation in Chesapeake requires us to acknowledge a basic reality. A transportation system is only useful if people can actually get where they need to go, when they need to get there.
Chesapeake currently has 12 HRT routes, including two express routes, but our own Chesapeake 2045 Comprehensive Plan identifies significant challenges. Many routes operate only once an hour, some stop service around 7:00 or 7:30 in the evening, and four routes do not operate on Sundays. That does not adequately serve someone working an evening shift, a weekend job, or a resident who depends on public transportation to reach healthcare, education, or essential services.
As a Councilwoman, I would focus on solutions in four areas: frequency, accessibility, connectivity, and innovation.
First, I would work with Hampton Roads Transit to evaluate our existing routes using ridership data and community input and identify where increased frequency and expanded evening and weekend service would have the greatest impact. Chesapeake helps fund HRT and provides guidance on preferred routes, so City Council has a responsibility to advocate for a system that better reflects the needs of our residents.
Second, we have to solve the first and last mile problem. A bus route may technically serve an area, but that means very li le if a resident lives too far from the stop or cannot safely reach it. Chesapeake’s OnDemand Ride sharing program is an opportunity to address that challenge. HRT expanded this micro-transit service into Chesapeake in January 2026 specifically to serve areas with limited fixed route service and connect residents to the larger transit network. I would closely evaluate the results of this program and, if the data demonstrate that it is working, advocate for its continuation and strategic expansion.
Third, transit planning and land use planning need to work together. I want better connections between residential communities and major employment centers, healthcare facilities, schools, shopping areas, and regional transportation hubs. We also need sidewalks, accessible curb ramps, safe crossings, lighting, and appropriate bus shelters so that seniors, people with disabilities, and residents without vehicles can safely reach transit. Public transportation cannot be planned in isolation from the infrastructure surrounding it.
Finally, I believe Chesapeake should continue evaluating higher capacity transit for our future. HRT and Chesapeake have already been studying options including express bus service, bus rapid transit, and light rail, and in 2026 HRT moved forward with additional feasibility analysis for bus rapid transit connecting Chesapeake with Downtown Norfolk. I am not interested in selecting a transportation mode simply because it sounds impressive. I want to understand the cost, projected ridership, economic development potential, regional connectivity, and long term benefit to Chesapeake taxpayers before making that investment.
My approach is practical. Improve the service we have, fill the gaps where traditional bus routes do not work, connect transportation investments to where people actually live and work, and pursue state and federal transportation dollars so Chesapeake taxpayers are not carrying the entire burden.
For residents who cannot drive because of age, disability, income, or circumstance, transportation can determine whether they can get to work, see a doctor, buy groceries, or participate in their community. I want Chesapeake to build a transportation system that provides people with greater access to opportunity, not one that assumes everyone has access to a car.
9. Considering the new 25-year contract the City signed with SPSA for combined single-bin trash and recycling collection, and considering the steadily increasing tipping fees (cost per ton collected) associated with the new contract, what steps should the City take to encourage residents, businesses, schools, and institutions to REDUCE the amount of solid waste put out for collection?
Answer: With Chesapeake entering a long term waste management agreement and facing increasing tipping fees, reducing the amount of waste we generate is no longer simply an environmental objective. It is also a fiscal responsibility. Every ton of unnecessary material we keep out of the waste stream represents an opportunity to control future costs for our residents.
My approach would begin with a simple principle: the least expensive ton of waste to manage is the ton we never generate. That is also consistent with the EPA’s waste management hierarchy, which prioritizes source reduction and reuse before recycling, energy recovery, and disposal.
First, Chesapeake should establish measurable waste reduction goals and begin routinely evaluating what is actually entering our waste stream. We cannot effectively manage what we do not measure. I would support periodic waste audits and publicly reporting our progress so Council and residents can see whether our strategies are actually reducing the number of tons for which the City is paying.
Second, we should launch a strong public education campaign focused on reducing waste before it reaches the bin. That means helping households understand how to reduce unnecessary packaging, reuse materials, donate usable household goods, and purchase more intentionally. Our schools can play an important role by teaching waste reduction and environmental stewardship early, while the City can provide businesses and institutions with practical guidance for reducing their waste.
Food waste deserves par cular a en on. EPA research identifies wasted food as the single most common material sent to landfills and incinerators nationally. Chesapeake should explore expanded opportunities for backyard and community composting, food donation partnerships, and eventually larger scale organics diversion where it is economically feasible. Restaurants, grocery stores, schools, hospitals, and other large institutions should be encouraged to conduct food waste audits, improve purchasing practices, and donate safe surplus food rather than disposing of it. EPA identifies preventing wasted food, donation, and up cycling among the most environmentally preferable approaches.
Third, the City should lead by example. I would support waste reduction standards within City government, including reducing unnecessary single use products, expanding electronic processes, purchasing durable and reusable products when practical, and incorporating recycled content and reduced packaging into procurement decisions. We should also work with Chesapeake Public Schools and other public institutions to identify opportunities to reduce waste across their operations.
I would also like Chesapeake to strengthen its culture of reuse. Community repair events, donation programs, textile collection, and convenient opportunities to reuse furniture, electronics, building materials, and other household goods can extend the useful life of products while keeping them out of our waste stream.
Finally, I believe incentives are generally more effective than simply telling people to produce less trash. I would explore recognition programs and other practical incentives for businesses, schools, neighborhoods, and institutions that demonstrate meaningful waste reduction. Before implementing any program that creates additional costs for residents or businesses, I would want clear data demonstrating that the program would reduce our overall waste disposal costs.
A 25 year agreement requires 25 year thinking. We should not spend the next quarter century simply figuring out how to dispose of an ever increasing amount of waste. We should be working upstream to reduce how much waste Chesapeake produces in the first place.
That is the approach I would bring to City Council: measure the problem, reduce waste at its source, expand reuse and organics diversion, educate and incentivize our community, and hold ourselves accountable for results. That protects our environment, extends the life of our regional waste infrastructure, and most importantly, helps protect Chesapeake taxpayers from unnecessary costs.
10. Would you support implementing a 5¢ fee on plastic bags to encourage the use of reusable shopping bags and to fund local environmental cleanup, litter and pollution mitigation, or environmental education efforts, and/or to provide reusable bags to recipients of SNAP or WIC benefits? Why or why not?
Answer: I would not support implementing a 5¢ plastic bag fee at this time. While I strongly believe we have a responsibility to protect Chesapeake’s environment and preserve it for future generations, I do not believe the answer should be another cost passed on to our residents. Families are already stretched financially. The cost of housing, groceries, transportation, utilities, healthcare, and other necessities continues to put pressure on household budgets. I see firsthand in healthcare that some people are making difficult decisions about how to pay for food, household expenses, and their prescriptions. Even a seemingly small additional fee can matter when families are counting every dollar.
Environmental stewardship and affordability should not have to compete with one another. Rather than beginning with a fee, I would support stronger environmental education, voluntary reusable-bag initiatives, partnerships with businesses to reduce single-use plastics, expanded litter and pollution prevention efforts, and programs that make reusable bags readily available—particularly to residents receiving SNAP or WIC benefits.
We also need to do a better job of helping residents understand how litter, plastic waste, flooding, water quality, loss of tree canopy, and other environmental challenges affect Chesapeake’s quality of life. When people understand what is at stake and are given practical and affordable ways to participate, we can build a culture of environmental responsibility without making everyday necessities more expensive.
My goal would be to protect both our environment and our residents’ pocketbooks. We can encourage responsible choices, reduce waste, and preserve Chesapeake for the next generation without automatically placing another financial burden on families who are already stretched thin.
Answer: Land use decisions are some of the most consequential decisions City Council makes because they can permanently change the character of a neighborhood, affect traffic and flooding, place additional demands on schools and infrastructure, and impact property owners for generations. Residents should never feel as though they learned about a major development after the important decisions had already been made.
Chesapeake currently requires public notice for many land use applications through signs posted on the property, notification letters to adjacent property owners, newspaper advertisements, and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The City also provides an online development map and allows residents to submit electronic comments to the Planning Commission. Those are important tools, but I believe we can do more.
As a Councilwoman, I would advocate for earlier public engagement. The first meaningful conversation with residents should not occur at the final public hearing. For major developments or projects with substantial impacts on surrounding communities, I would encourage community mee ngs earlier in the process so residents can ask questions, identify concerns, and potentially influence a proposal before it reaches the point of an up or down vote.
I would also support making development information easier for the average resident to understand. Chesapeake’s development mapping system allows residents to locate proposed developments and track applications, but accessing the underlying application documents requires residents to register for an eBUILD account. I would like us to move toward a more user friendly system where residents can easily see what is proposed, the location, number and type of housing units or commercial uses, traffic implications, environmental considerations, infrastructure impacts, upcoming meeting dates, and the current status of an application in one place.
Notification should also reflect how people communicate today. In addition to legally required notices, I would support exploring voluntary email or text alerts that residents could subscribe to based on their neighborhood, ZIP code, or geographic area. If a significant rezoning or development proposal is moving forward near someone’s home, they should have a reasonable opportunity to know about it and participate.
Transparency also means explaining decisions. Chesapeake 2045 makes clear that City Council considers the application, staff recommendation, Planning Commission recommendation, public comments, and the Comprehensive Plan before approving or denying a land use application. When Council makes a major land use decision, particularly when that decision differs from significant community input, residents deserve to understand the reasoning behind the vote.
Finally, public engagement must be meaningful, not performative. Listening to residents does not mean that every person will agree with every decision, but it does mean their concerns should be heard, considered, and addressed with facts. I want developers, residents, Planning Commission, City staff, and Council communicating earlier and more openly.
Growth will continue to come to Chesapeake. My responsibility on City Council would be to make sure it happens transparently, thoughtfully, and with residents at the table. People should not have to fight City Hall simply to understand what is being proposed in their own community.
12. What other sustainability, environmental, or quality-of-life issue do you believe deserves greater attention? Please elaborate.
Answer: One issue that deserves greater attention is the connection between our environment, our built infrastructure, and public health. As a clinical pharmacist and healthcare advocate, I view sustainability through a public health lens. Where we live, the air we breathe, our exposure to extreme heat, whether our neighborhoods flood, and whether residents can safely walk and be physically active all have consequences for health.
I believe Chesapeake should place greater emphasis on creating healthy neighborhoods, particularly as our city continues to grow. That means preserving tree canopy and expanding trees in areas where shade is limited. Trees do more than beautify a community. They provide shade, reduce surrounding temperatures, absorb stormwater, improve air quality, and make walking and outdoor activity more comfortable.
I also believe we need to consider environmental impacts when making land use decisions. Communities should not disproportionately experience increased truck traffic, noise, air pollution, flooding, or other environmental burdens because of where development is located. When considering major projects, I would ask not only what they contribute economically, but also what they mean for the health and quality of life of the people who already live nearby.
Another important component is designing communities that encourage healthy living. Sidewalks, connected trails, parks, safe crossings, green space, and access to recreation are not simply amenities. They give residents opportunities to walk, exercise, interact with their neighbors, and remain active as they age.
For me, sustainability is ultimately about stewardship. Economic development, environmental protection, infrastructure, and public health should not exist in separate conversations. The decisions we make about development today will determine what Chesapeake looks and feels like decades from now. I want us to build a city where economic progress and quality of life reinforce one another, while ensuring that the Chesapeake we leave to the next generation is healthier, more resilient, and just as beautiful as the one we inherited.