Virginia Beach Residents were Ignored

WOW: The Virginia Beach Council of Civic Organizations Call: the Latest.
Also: Listen to Council member Henley discuss the ramifications with John Moss

The vote was TUESDAY, October 17. The call was to fill the auditorium. The answer is: yes we can! The question becomes: does the City Council care to listen (outside of Ms. Henley and Mr. Chris Taylor who did listen to the people)?

Appropriate development, appropriate redevelopment, appropriate infill development which fit with the surrounding neighborhoods can find support with neighbors but apparently NOT with seven members of the city council: Mayor Dyer, Joash Schulman who made the motion to approve the project, Mr. Berlucchi, Ms. Wooten, Dr. Ross-Hammond, Mr. Remick, Vice Mayor Wilson. Who, in spite of the unprecedented crowd that filled the auditorium, in spite of the hours of speakers who included city appointed advisory commissions, civic leaders and citizens from many districts, chose to approve the project which allows inappropriate density and allows transfer of development rights, exempts the developer from providing adequate parking, exempts them from following height restrictions and from including green space.

Four Planning commissioners cited a number of reasons why they would not support it. One commissioner said that since several city advisory boards-ITA (Interfacility Traffic) Commission, the Agricultural Commission (since the parcel is below the Green Line )and the Active Transportation Committee spoke against it, they would not support it. Another said they were persuaded that this development did not fit with the Comprehensive Plan and also did not agree with transferring development rights which this project does in order to achieve an effective density of 58 units per acre. One commissioner was concerned with the appearance of money (campaign contributions) playing a role. The Franklin Johnston Group has made substantial contributions to several Mayor Dyer’s and several council members’ election campaigns.

What gets developed in one part of the city directly impacts what can be developed elsewhere. When precedents are set, they can be used by other developers to justify development along the same lines. Fairness, as imposed by court cases or council decisions, will require that subsequent developers be allowed the same latitude to transfer development rights, manipulate density calculations to include land that cannot be built on to inflate total density, and the other accommodations being offered to this developer in this project. 

Ocean Park may soon face similar questions about the Marlin Bay development. Residents should have a say in what their neighborhood looks like, how crowded and congested it is allowed to become.

The choices are frequently framed as all or nothing. Since Virginia Beach has a need for more housing, supporters of this project say that the questions and concerns raised about this development should not be addressed but the only choice is to approve it. Why must we be offered only the option of developments that are super sized?  Why can’t reasonable, appropriate development be encouraged? Residents are not saying ‘don’t build anything’. Over and over again, the people who live in Virginia Beach say: build what is appropriate for the space. A good example of appropriate and reasonable development is the Kempsville Crossing Development. Not one person spoke in opposition when it finally came before the City Council and it was approved. True community engagement by the developer resulted, after a few months of negotiation, in community support of the project.