What is the MARLIN BAY Development proposed in Ocean Park?

The Marlin Bay properties on Shore Dr. at Marlin Bay Dr. , which are next to the Pleasure House Point Nature Area, are owned by the Browning and McLeskey families. They wish to develop these properties in tandem as one development. In 2020 a 227 unit apartment complex of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units with a 4 1/2 story parking garage was proposed. The developers asked the city to approve rezoning and B4 conditional use so they could build this large development which cannot be built under its current zoning. The project includes using the acreage of the Lynnhaven Marina even though it will remain solely a boat sales business (under a long term lease from the McLeskey Co.) and will not be integrated into the project. Using this acreage in calculating the density yields the high density desired by the owners to reach their stated profit goal. The Bayfront Advisory Commission twice declined to recommend approval even after the design density was reduced to 197 units. The Planning Commission did vote to recommend City Council approval (see below) with three members dissenting. In October 2021 the application to build the complex was withdrawn by the owners. A super majority is required in a city council vote to sell city property which the project would need to acquire the streets that separate the parcels. After the withdrawal of the application, the civic league expressed willingness and commitment to collaboration with the owners/developer in the hopes of finding a project with broad support. In Feb. 2022 the civic league committee met with and engaged in a substantive dialogue with Mr. Peterson with that aim. No subsequent invitations to meet were received.

This year the application to close and purchase the paper streets around the property was resubmitted to the city as a first step in resubmitting the project. In June 2023 the civic league responded with a letter reiterating a commitment to work with the developers to find a mutually acceptable project plan as a whole not in a piecemeal fashion. Councilman Schulman also requested the developers withdraw their application and offered to facilitate collaboration with the neighborhood which they did.

On September 28, 2023 Mr. Schulman organized a meeting between John Peterson, the developer, Mark Rosenfield from McLeskey and Associates, Delceno Miles-public relations and a committee from the civic league. Mr. Peterson described the purpose of meeting to be one of open discussion about the property to understand what the community could support. The view of the community has not changed since the 2022 meeting. The neighborhood wants to see the property developed in a way that fits in with the surroundings and that would be townhouses configured in such a way that they don’t loom over the properties behind. Mr. Peterson and Mr. Rosenfield stated that residential rental was the only option their clients were interested in-building units for sale would not be considered. Also in their view retail was not a viable option. They inquired whether a work housing component would make the development more attractive. Since this allows a 30% increase in density bonus- the community representatives did not support that option.

On Monday, November 6th, the committee from the civic league met with John Peterson, Delceno Miles and Mark Rosenfield representing the McLeskey and Browning families who want to develop the Marlin Bay property. Councilman Joash Schulman organized the meeting which included Mr. Bob Magoon, Design Chair for the Bayfront Advisory Commission, civic league board members and Ocean Park residents including subject area professionals: developers, architects, realtors. The main outcome of the meeting was that theMcLeskey and Browning families will not consider options which include developing for eventual sale. They have excluded commercial, single family and townhouse development from consideration. Their intention at this time is to move forward with the original project plan of 227 apartments. This of course flies in the face of all promises of ”community engagement” since the main concern of the community has been the high density of the project. The last proposal of the project which was withdrawn in October 2021 was for 197 apartments so this is a return to the highest density.

Why are Residents Opposed?

The Marlin Bay Apartment project is not consistent with the city’s own Comprehensive Plan.The City of Virginia Beach City Council adopted the current Comprehensive Plan in 2017.  The City Council lays out specific goals for each area of the city in the Comprehensive Plan. In the Suburban Focus area section that deals with Shore Dr., the City Council sets forth Guiding Planning Principles to achieve  a stated goal of Great Neighborhoods. Here are some quotes from the CP that show how inconsistent the Marlin Bay Development is with the plan that the City Council has adopted for Ocean Park and Shore Dr.

  • “Our primary guiding principle for the Suburban Area is to create “Great Neighborhoods,” and “to support those neighborhoods with complementary non-residential uses in such a way that working together the stability and sustainability of the Suburban Area is ensured for now and the future.” (page 1-60) 
  • “For example, new residential development on larger parcels should be consistent with the character of any residential uses in the surrounding area, as well as consistent with the guiding planning principles for the Suburban Area.” “Residential density in the Suburban Area should be low to medium where the surrounding land use patterns and densities are appropriate for such. Higher densities are appropriate for development in the Urban Areas.”  (page 1-62)
  • “Infill development on small vacant parcels within an existing neighborhood or on parcels being redeveloped should be compatible to the existing development around it. Designing a structure that is scaled and proportioned with surrounding development is typically more difficult than utilizing a design that simply fits the site and meets zoning regulations. The result, however, is a structure compatible with the neighborhood with respect to land use and design, and will give the impression to those who pass by that it has always been part of the original development.”     (page 1-63)

Summary of Events so far…

  • April 13, 2020 Mr. Peterson, the project developer for the McLeskey-Browning families, presents the Marlin Bay project to the board of OPCL on Zoom. The information in the developer presentation is shared with the community and feedback is solicited from residents. There was a lot of feedback.
  • May 7, 2020 The proposal for the development of the Marlin Bay Project is discussed at the Ocean Park Civic League General Membership Meeting. Membership voted unanimously to oppose the project.
  • July 16, 2020 A presentation by Mr. Peterson on behalf of the McLeskey/Browning families is on the Agenda of the Bayfront Advisory Commission. Many residents planned to attend. Mr. Shea said there were hundreds of emails and letters opposing the project. Mr. Peterson cancels the presentation at the last minute.
  • October 15, 2020 A meeting was requested and scheduled with OPCL board and BAC and then was cancelled by the John Peterson, developer.
  • November 19, 2020 John Peterson on behalf of the McLeskey/Browning families presents the project to the BAC. Bayfront Advisory Commission declines to approve the project offering to work with the developer to suggest changes.
  • January 28, 2021 Meeting of John Peterson, ‘Tuck’ Bowie, Chris Wood with Lisa Murphy, their legal counsel and OPCL board members with our counsel. The same project presentation is repeated-no changes. This was the only meeting with OPCL after initial presentation. The idea of trading lots close to PHP in return for stopping the opposition to MB project is mentioned but the developer side commented “we don’t even know how that would be accomplished”.
  • April 15, 2021 Mr. Peterson, on behalf of the McLeskey/Browning families, again presents to the Bayfront Advisory Commission lowering the unit number to 197 (OPCL not consulted or informed). The BAC again votes overwhelmingly to decline to approve the project.
  • May 10, 2021 Official orange signs from the Planning Department are posted stating the project will go before the Planning Commission June 9, 2021.
  • June 3, 2021 The city staff planner report is published. Mr. Dao recommends approval. The report states that over 200 letters were received in opposition and 3 received in favor. Staff Planner Report.pdf
  • June 4, 2021. The McLeskey company requests deferment of the project from the Planning Commission Agenda in order to ‘garner more support’.
  • June 22, 2021. Informal meeting between representatives of the McLeskey and Browning families-Chris Wood and Mark Rosenfield and OPCL board president and vice president. At this meeting Chris Wood and Mark Rosenfield pushed the idea that the lots close to PHP could and would be developed if MB opposition prevented MB from going forward. They did not bring up negotiation of any part of the design of MB. We expressed our strong interest in preserving the PHP lots but conveyed that there is no interest from the neighborhood in trading development of lots closer to the Brock Center(40 units) for MB development (197 units). We said we would be glad to participate in an open house to educate residents.
  • June 25, 2021. The McLeskey lawyer requests in writing another postponement to September 8th.
  • July 14, 2021. At the request of the McLeskey company, the Planning Commission grants a deferral to Sept. 8.
  • September 8, 2021 Planning Commission votes 7-3 to recommend approval to the City Council.
  • September 30, 2021 The McLeskey company informed the city of their request for a deferral of the City Council’s consideration of the project until the Nov. 7th meeting.
  • October 15, 2021 The McLeskey company submitted a letter to the City Council withdrawing their applications regarding the Marlin Bay property. At the October 19th City Council meeting a motion was made by Council member Jones and seconded by CM Branch to accept the withdrawal of the applications. the City Council accepted their withdrawal. (10-0, CM Wilson was absent.) edocs.vbgov.com/CityClerk
  • February 10,2022 Meeting with Mr. Peterson and the committee (Brian Snyder, David Perme, Scott Ayers, Andrea Lindemann, Danny Murphy. Meeting arranged by Mr. Peterson as a first step in hearing the concerns of the community.
  • June 2023 Mr. Peterson, developer for the Marlin Bay property, informs OPCL of the application to close and purchase the paper streets which separate the different parcels that make up the project planned property. OPCL responds objecting to the street closure without the context of project plan.

Letter to City Planner for the Marlin Bay Project

RE: Marlin Bay Apartment Development & Initial June 9, 2021 Staff Planning Report

Dear Mr. Dao:

Thank you again for taking the time to meet with us last Thursday to review the initial June meeting Staff Planning Report on the Marlin Bay Development. Your professionalism and personal investment in your role are a considerable asset to the Planning Department and the City of Virginia Beach. As indicated during our meeting, I would request the following additions or alterations to any subsequent reports in order to provide a more complete analysis of the application.

  1. The Evaluation and Recommendation section of the report leads with a truncated discussion for the proposed project density of 31.77.  “While the proposed density at 31.77 units per acre is higher compared to developments in the immediate surrounding area”. As we will explain below, the effective development density exceeds 40 units per acre. While the report is more complete when addressing zoning history (though there is an omission there addressed later), the report fails to offer a complete picture of the density of the properties surrounding the project and does not contain figures that would allow a determination of whether this project does in fact meet the Comprehensive Plan requirement of infill having “compatible density” and “preserving and protecting the character of established neighborhoods and achieving the lowest reasonable density for future residential uses.”. While the report cites the Comprehensive Plan in several places, the report does not include the Comprehensive Plan language about density. What is significantly lacking is any analysis of the existing density of the neighborhood in order to determinethe lowest reasonable density for future residential uses. 
    1. What is the average density currently in the Ocean Park neighborhood? How exactly would the addition of nearly 200 units in a 1,400-unit neighborhood change density?
    2. What is the density of the adjacent and nearby properties? What is the average density for these properties?
    3. As noted, there are existing B-4 & A-18 zoned properties within the Ocean Park neighborhood. What is their proximity of these sites, when were they built, what is their density?
  1. The B-2 Boat Sales lot will exist separately without redevelopment as a recommended proffer. “In no case shall the area labeled ‘Existing Boat Sales’ and the associated parking lot be developed with any dwelling units.” Page 6, Recommended Conditions for Conditional Use Permit The stated calculation of 31.77/acre does not capture the effective density which would exceed 40 units per acre even including the area of the Clipper Bay Drive paper street closure. Thus, the residential apartment development of 197 units will only occur on 4.88 acres of land and would result in a density of over 40 units per acre. Page 3, Evaluation and Recommendation
  2. The rezoning and conditional use of the B-2 Boat Sales lot to B-4 (SD) is in significant conflict with the Comprehensive plan, Shore Drive Overlay District, Shore Drive Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines and city code for “mixed use” district zoning.
    1. As defined in city code, Sec. 111. Definitions, “Mixed use. Two (2) or more separate uses allowed as principal or conditional uses that arephysically and functionally integrated with the same structure on one (1) zoning lot.” The Boat Sales building is neither physically or functionally integrated with the same structure. To the contrary: In the proposal the boat sales building will be unattached and significantly separated by the primary roadway leading to and from the parking garage, building entrance and outdoor amenities. Page 12, Proposed Conceptual Site Layout. 
    2. Per the proposal, the boat sales building is only slated to encompass one unit of 2,000 sq. ft. of retail or restaurant space which equates to only 16% of the space. Boat sales will occupy the remaining 10,000 sq. feet of the building. This does not represent functional integration. 
    3. Furthermore, proposed plan indicates that additional space may be allocated to retail/restaurant, but this would only further exacerbate the report’s stated deficiency of required parking at the boat sales building site: “With the exception of parking area for the existing boat sales dealership located between the building and public street, that does not conform with the Guidelines…” Page 3, Evaluation & Recommendation
  3. As detailed extensively in the Mixed-Use Development Guidelines, adopted by City Council in 2004, the intent to “develop mixed use as a principal tool for redevelopment and as a preferred land use pattern in the Strategic Growth Areas (SGAs), and develop necessary zoning and other regulatory tools to encourage it” not in Suburban Focus Area 1 Shore Drive Corridor with adjacent residential single-family dwellings. Page 7, Comprehensive Plan Recommendations
  4. As stated in the report in reference to the Comprehensive Plan and Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines several critical facts have been omitted:
    1. The project site is contiguous to the City’s 118-acre Pleasure House Point Natural Area and as such requires “specific planning guidance”per the comprehensive plan: “Ensure that any development in the surrounding area is complementary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resource and open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point.”
    2. In addition, although the project site is technically within the “mixed zone” for the Shore Drive Corridor, it sits on the dividing line with the “green zone”, Marlin Bay Drive. Page 3, Evaluation and Recommendation 
  1. And as noted during our meeting the PD-H1 Mariners Landing Townhouses adjacent to the south was omitted from the Zoning History Map. In order to give a full picture of the zoning which surrounds the property, the single-family dwellings to the south should also be included. Page 2, Background & Summary of Proposal

Again, thank you for your honest consideration of these points in order to provide a more thorough and accurate report for the September 8th Planning Commission hearing.

Very respectfully,

Danny Murphy, President

Ocean Park Civic League

Don’t Change the Rules!

The core of residents’ concern is the density of the project. It is too many people in too small a space. Interestingly the high rises in Ocean Park were built before the Comprehensive Plan and the Shore Drive Design Guidelines were adopted by the City Council and before the council established the Bayfront Advisory Council. In these planning guidelines, which the BAC references in their opposition to the project, the city very clearly went a different path from those high rises and instead laid out a vision where the density was kept low and most especially that anything that was built would be consistent with what surrounds it-in this case townhouses and single family homes. They chose NOT to sanction more high rise buildings and high density development.

The owners of the Marlin Bay properties-the McLeskey and Browning families -have held this property for decades and are responsible for the condition it is in now. Residents should not be penalized with unwanted overdevelopment as a result of their poor stewardship. Residents are not against all change. They do not wish to preserve the boat trailer storage. They do not wish to block any or all development of the property. They are only asking that the zoning not be changed to allow a project of this density to be built which is not in compliance with what the city itself has adopted. It is currently zoned B2- so develop it as a business. The rest is zoned PDH1-so develop it as housing at that density. Don’t change the rules on the residents .

Important Documents

The owners of the property where the Marlin Bay Apartment complex was proposed have sent a letter to the city withdrawing the project from the City Council agenda. We support their request to withdraw the application and we thank the owners for listening to the community’s concerns and reconsidering the potential redevelopment of those lots. We look forward to working with them on finding a mutual solution to this and other projects within the community.

Who voted to recommend approval to the City Council: developers (Redmond, Graham), a lawyer who works for developers (including this one!) (Inman), member involved with development/building industry (Weiner), a former candidate for City Council (Oliver) whose “biggest supporters were developer Bruce Thompson, former mayor Will Sessoms”,who resigned after being convicted of conflict of interest charges.(Virginian Pilot), two who thought the project was attractive.

Who voted not to recommend approval? A social worker who said this is not affordable housing (Klein), a former budget director (Bradley) and an engineer (Wall) both who cited the insufficient compliance with the infill density called for in the Comprehensive Plan and the Shore Drive Design Guidelines. We turn to the real decision makers, the City Council of Virginia Beach.

Dear City Council members, 

I am a resident of Ocean Park and I would like to express my strong opposition to the Marlin Bay Apartment complex that is proposed for Shore Dr. in Ocean Park. I am opposed to the change in zoning that would allow a project of this size to be built in our small, unique neighborhood. This property is not zoned for almost 200 units on only 4.2 acres. The impact on our neighborhood would be a negative one. I chose to live in Ocean Park because of it’s unique qualities, its small town atmosphere and its unrushed neighborhood quality of life. This project will change this community in a profoundly negative way and I feel this is unfair to me as a resident (and property owner). 

This project has 31.77 units per acre. This is more than double anything built anywhere nearby. Recent projects in Ocean Park have been 14 units per acre. This is NOT lowest reasonable density called for in the Comprehensive Plan that is supposed to guide city decision making. This project is not consistent with the residential area around it. The Comprehensive Plan calls for  new residential development be “consistent with the character of any residential uses in the surrounding area”. The predominantly 4 story building will tower over the adjacent townhouses. The 4 1/2 story parking garage will be plainly visible over the 3 story portion of the building on Shore Dr. This project is out of step with the Ocean Park community which is comprised of duplexes, townhomes and single family homes. This apartment complex is not like anything around it and will change what I moved to Ocean Park to find. 

Please do not support this zoning change for the Marlin Bay Project. Thank you for your attention and your consideration.

Sincerely,

If you would like to have a yard sign to display, contact us at communication@opcl.org. Donations toward the cost of the signs are appreciated! Donate with your credit card at: cheddarup-no-way-marlin-bay-yard-signs. If you would like to use PayPal: paypal-nowaymarlinbay.com/. You can also mail a check to: OPCL Box 55385 Virginia Beach, VA 23471

Bulletin: Thank you to all the speakers who appeared at the Planning Commission meeting! It is a measure of this close knit community that so many were willing to come out in the middle of a work day to stand up for the future of Ocean Park. Everyone did a fantastic job! President Danny Murphy said: “It was not the strength our argument that failed, it was deaf ears of the committee”. The vote went pretty much as expected: 7 to 3 in favor of recommending to the City Council that they approve this development. Since so many members of the commission are fervently pro-development, this was not a big surprise though disappointing. We also want to thank the commission members who were willing to look more closely at the issue and weigh in other factors: Mr. Wall, Ms. Klein and the newest member Mr. Bradley.
Residents who oppose the Marlin Bay Development should not give up! The real opportunity is coming at the City Council Meeting on October 19th.  We can expect the City Council to be more receptive to the concerns of voter-residents.  Our points about non compliance with Comprehensive Plan language about infill development and mixed use were not countered. We must press forward with those. Let’s work together to be heard!

 October 17, 2021

Letter to the Community from President Danny Murphy:

There are many people to thank, honestly too many, so please accept this broad generalization and allow us to deliver our sincere appreciation on a more personal level:

  • 1st on the list! Residents, neighbors & Shore Drive friends – the support and engagement shown by you has been both phenomenal and inspiring: phone calls, letters, emails, signs, social media posts, showing up, speaking, votes, donations, meetings and even more meetings. 
  • Organizations & boards – Unmitigated support from nearby Civic Leagues (esp. Baylake Pines & Chic’s Beach), and the Shore Drive Community Coalition.
  • Wolcott Rivers Gates for critical counsel and stewardship. 
  • Local Media – Including 13NewsNow, News 3, WHRV & the Virginian-Pilot/pilotonline
  • Last but never least, the leadership of Ocean Park Civic League – The board of directors, past directors and presidents, committee members and chairs. No one will truly know the countless hours and effort logged by these dedicated people to bring about this result.
  • City leadership, staff and boards- It starts in our backyard: Bayfront Advisory Commission!! Members of the Planning Commission including Robyn Klein, David Bradley & Jack Wall. And City Council members: in particular Louis Jones, who gave his support and advice from the beginning, John Moss, whose support and advice was also pivotal, Michael Berlucchi, Aaron Rouse, Rocky Holcomb & Mayor Dyer who met with us and listened to our concerns and also Barbara Henley, Guy Tower and Sabrina Wooten. In addition, we would like to thank the city staff who played it straight and provided needed responses and explanation whenever asked. 

I would like to sincerely thank everyone for your diligent and unstinting labors to preserve and protect the character of the Ocean Park neighborhood over the past year or so. While the withdrawal of the Marlin Bay Development from the City Council agenda does not end our efforts to find a reasonable and appropriate use (redevelopment) for these properties, I am sure it comes as a great relief to many of you.

RE: Marlin Bay Development Request for Withdrawal from City Council Agenda

To this wonderful community: please accept our most sincere appreciation for all your efforts. 

Sincerely,

Danny Murphy

Ocean Park Civic League President

Dear Residents of Ocean Park, 

For over a year residents of Ocean Park have actively opposed the Marlin Bay Development. We believe that this large development will fundamentally change the nature and character of our neighborhood. It will set a terrible precedent for inappropriately high density that could open the door for more similar projects in the future.

The strongest argument we have is that our neighborhood is unique and beloved for its character. Most of us moved here because of that special character that has been enshrined by the City’s Comprehensive and Shore Drive Corridor Plans. You have a voice in preserving our neighborhood. The properties at Marlin Bay Drive should be developed in accordance with the existing zoning and City planning guidelines: townhouses, duplexes and single-family homes, not a large high-density multi-family using erroneous mixed-use rezoning.

If you have not done so, please consider writing today to The Planning Commission members and City Council to add your voice to preserve our neighborhood from overdevelopment.  So many residents have helped in this effort so far and we thank them. Join with us!

Daniel Murphy


“Alone we can do so little, together we can do so much.”

Helen Keller

2 thoughts on “What is the MARLIN BAY Development proposed in Ocean Park?”

Add yours

  2. Thank you for putting this all together. While this project is overwhelmingly rejected by the immediate Ocean Park (OP) community, it will make a negative impact on the entire Shore Drive corridor. As noted it does not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Furthermore, if approved, it would set a higher density precedent along the western portion of Shore Drive from the Lesner Bridge. It is adjacent to the beloved Pleasure House Point—a nature preserve and would act to exploit the nature of the area to the detriment of wildlife and humans alike. As often is the case in this city, it is likely that despite the rules and regs in the book, preferential treatment will be shown the developer of this property. They are VERY WELL CONNECTED and routinely and actively participate in local and state politics. It will take a lot of care from the citizens of VB to let the powers that be know that we DEMAND equitable treatment. Just say, “No way, Marlin Bay!”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑