Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Wetlands Controversy in Virginia Beach

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

In Virginia Beach, developers Steve and Art Sandler want to build 1,063 homes on a large stretch of waterfront property. Although their Indigo Dunes project would destroy 1.5 acres of wetlands, the Sandlers would create 6.09 acres of wetlands on site and treat some of the stormwater runoff from the nearby Ocean Park neighborhood as compensation.

However, the Virginia Beach Wetlands Board denied the request. Unfortunately, the article in today’s Virginian-Pilot doesn’t explore the pros and cons of the decision, so there is no way for an outside reader to decide whether it was reasonable or not.

The concept of wetlands offsets strikes me as a legitimate compromise between peoples’ desire to live on waterfront and the necessity of preserving wetlands as wildlife habitat, storm water run-off filter, and buffer against severe storms. The Sandlers were willing to create four acres of wetlands for every acre they destroyed. I’d like to know why the wetlands board deemed the offer inadequate. The Virginian-Pilot should follow up.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

14 responses to “Wetlands Controversy in Virginia Beach”

  1. Henry Ryto Avatar
    Henry Ryto

    Two things here:

    1. In the 1960s, the City zoned land in the western part of the Shore Drive Corridor (just west of Indigo Dunes) for way too much density. As our City Manager has said, “You could build another Manhattan up there.”

    In true Virginia style, infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with development. Residents are complaining about overcrowding up there already.

    2. The City of Virginia Beach is effectively run by developers. The City Manager even vacations with them.

    Some of the champagne corks being popped here aren’t as much for the project being stopped per se, but that developers finally lost one.

  2. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    The Maryland Board of Public Works took a similar stand at Kent Island.

    Mr. Ryto is right. The decision may seem strange but it is compensation for doing the wrong thing for 88 years.

    88 years because the end of World War I maked to start of Autonomobile driven settlement patterns.

    EMR

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m probably confused as usual.

    Is the issue that the offsets won’t provide the desired mitigation or are the wetlands being used to effectively deny the project?

    We keep saying that Smart Growth means higher densities which appears to be what is proposed.. and it also appears that the mitigation is good – though I’ll admit there is always two sides to an issue and we’ve yet to hear the other side.

    I’ll admit.. that higher densities without adequate infrastructure is NOT .. SMART GROWTH though.

    Virginia has a problem.

    Basically they force a locality to accept higher density development that was rezoned years ago either by stupidity, greed or just plain bad planning with respect to land-use and transportation.

    If you try to correct the mistake – the “downzone” word gets the property rights folks all spun up..

    and the developers don’t like the idea of collecting money to pay for infrastructure upgrades to support the development…

    their “solution” is to make the existing residents pay for the infrastructure upgrades – as much of it as developers want to build… no matter how much or how short a time period.. just raise the taxes on existing property owners.. to pay for it.

    Basically – our state policies – with regard to land-use – encourage … bad planning… it’s the easiest, least difficult path for most localities to follow…

    you just do the deed – and blame it on your predecessors…

  4. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “88 years because the end of World War I maked to start of Autonomobile driven settlement patterns.”

    Give me a break.

    What do you suppose our GNP, or our lives would look like, if we reverted to a time before the automobile?

    At time when horses let loose on 80,000 tons of plluution, every day in Chicago alone?

    I support economic alternatives to the auto, where they work. At present, and for the last 88 years, they have not worked in most places, or for most people.

    That may change. We should plan for that change, appropriately. In the meantime, your constant diatribe against “autononobility” is displaced, in time and economics.

    Meanwhile, you still drive your retirement SUV’s: rationalize it anyway you want.

  5. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Basically they force a locality to accept higher density development that was rezoned years ago either by stupidity, greed or just plain bad planning with respect to land-use and transportation.

    If you try to correct the mistake – the “downzone” word gets the property rights folks all spun up..

    and the developers don’t like the idea of collecting money to pay for infrastructure upgrades to support the development…

    their “solution” is to make the existing residents pay for the infrastructure upgrades – as much of it as developers want to build… no matter how much or how short a time period.. just raise the taxes on existing property owners.. to pay for it.

    Basically – our state policies – with regard to land-use – encourage … bad planning… it’s the easiest, least difficult path for most localities to follow… “

    ——————————-

    This is where you and I part company.

    I’ll agree that there may have been mistakes made in the past regarding zoning. I do not know whether it was stupidity, greed, bad planning, or intended fairness. Maybe they just did not know as much as we know now.

    I’m not convinced that this is enough reason for the government to go back on former promises, especially when such action punishes those that have conserved the most for the longest.

    The current situation is insufficient to lose our honor over previous promises, even if they were mistaken. A bad contrzct is still a contract. Besides, there is more than adequate evidence to suggest that the existing majoritarian party is “negotiating” in bad faith.

    When you say “you try to correct Ifthe mistake – the “downzone” word gets the property rights folks all spun up….” then you are pre supposing that it was, in fact a mistake, and not a promise made to existing conservation minded residents. Conservation is NOT forever.

    I don’t think that developers have a problem with paying for upgrades to services caused by their activities. I do think they have a problem with being required to pay for many years of previous underinvestment. Some of that underinvestment was based on the (mistaken) idea that previous conservation minded residents would never actually act on their (promised) rights.

    I’m not a developer. I’m a conservationist. Yet, I believe your argument that the developers “solution” is to make the existing residents pay for the infrastructure upgrades is simply wrong. I believe that the developers have a right to expect that they should not have to pay for ALL of the previous (mistaken) underinvestment.

    Having said all of that, I agree with your final statement. “Or state policies – with regard to land-use – encourage … bad planning”

    It is not as if you do the deed and blame it on your predecessor. Your predecessor made a promise, a contract, and you are bound by it: as a representative of the government.

    Now, you (or your constituents) want to buy your way out, at today’s market prices, then that is something else again.

    I don’t hear anyone “blaming” the constitution on our predecessors.

  6. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    You can put all the quotes around it you want “””””””Downzoning””””””
    is reneging on a former promise.

    Downzoning without compensation is stealing.

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Downzoning without compensation is stealing”

    then what is “upzoning”?

    is it a windfall for someone who did nothing to deserve it?

    what is the public purpose of any “upzone” – as opposed to an environment where ANY more intensive use of a property – that affects the public interest – must be approved – with full mitigation?

    Any “upzone” that does not have an accompanying infrastructure plan to deal with the consequences of the more intensive use – is essentially giving to individual property owners a “gift” from the public – who then has to subsequently pick up the infrastructure tab to support the upzoning/more intensive uses.

    re: previous infrastructure deficits

    Never advocated to return a LOS C highway to LOS A.

    Instead – look at traffic flow and require new development to mitigate the increase in traffic – not just at the development entrance but to put into a fund – their pro-rata share of what that development has “used” that ultimately must be replaced/restored.

    In other words – the policies are to require full mitigation and not allow degradation.

    All taxpayers can and should pay to take an existing road at LOS D and upgrade it to LOS C but you do need to acknowledge HOW the road got from LOS C to LOS D in the first place if developers were paying their “fair share” to mitigate all along?

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I did some more reading of some of the newspaper forum entries.. on this issue – and it appears that the locals highly value this property for walks on the beach and it’s viewshed.

    Someone advocated .. closing it off to public use and implied that the problem occured because the landowner “erred” by letting the public “think” that it belonged to them.

    Now.. that it is “threatened”, the public is defending their interests (in their mind) and all options to prevent the developer from developing it are fair game.

    I guess this can be argued from a number of different perspectives – but I’m not on the side of those who believe that they have the right to prevent development – without fair compensation to the property owner.

    In Stafford County – we have a similiar situation with a significant undeveloped parcel that the public does not want developed and the landowner is demanding what he feels is fair value.

    There is disagreement on the value because of different views of it’s development potential.

    The county has decided/threatened to condemn the property .. through a “quick take” and then sort out the money part in court.. much like VDOT would.

    But there is political backwash from other taxpayers who do not feel their taxes should be used to buy property whose public use may be minimal – as essentially a “preserve”.

    So Va Beach – has the same option.

    Buy the land.. using standard VDOT emminent domain tactics – sort of a reverse Kelo… approach… for public use.

  9. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Larry, If your reading of the situation is correct — if, in fact, the wetlands proposal was denied simply because people in the area like walking on the property and like the viewshed, so they don’t want the property developed — that’s not a good enough reason. Their desire to use the property for free, keeping it in an undeveloped state, does not trump the right of the owner to build on it. Perhaps someone should initiate a proposal to condemn the neighbors’ property for some alleged public good, just to see how they feel when it’s *their* property rights being violated.

    If there are sound, scientifically based reasons for turning down the Sandlers’ proposal — if their proposed offsets don’t mitigate the environmental damage their project would create — I’ll happily eat my words.

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Jim – if you go back to the article.. there’s a place for folks to add comments – and they have… and some of the comments leave me with the impression…that the locals don’t want it developed.

    .. it’s been my experience.. that more than a few controversial rezone proposals… was for undeveloped land… woods and water.. adjacent to a neighborhood that was treated by those that lived around it – as an open space “amenity” ( a viewshed and/or a place to walk, etc) … and .. in the minds of those who “use” that land, the development of it would be a “loss” to them.

    and so.. they fight the rezone… with every argument that is available – from endangered whatevers, to “too much growth”, to “straining services”, etc, etc.

    sometimes.. you’ll hear advocacy for the locality to buy the property and preserve it but the advocacy is almost always for ALL taxpayers to pay – as opposed to only those who benefit directly …
    and/or perceive it to be a benefit in the first place.

    Seldom do you seek a group form and collect donations to “save” the land.. instead.. they want to either stop the development or have other taxpayers buy the land.

    This dynamic can actually harm legitimate preservation of land that is significant in some way that should be a candidate for preservation.

    To a certain extent, this is where the advocacy for PDRs and TDRs come from – to “save” land from development – as opposed to saving specific land with unique significance which merits preservation.

    Often those who advocate PDR/TDR actually want land near where they lived saved…

    Ditto with Conservation Easements… especially those that have no significant features and are not available for public use.

    If we really want to preserve significant historical, cultural and natural resources – I feel we need to be clear about purpose and action.

    If we allow ANY land to be prevented from being developed for reasons that have nothing to do with legitimate preservation – then when a legitimate issue comes along – the ability to preserve can be undermined… and harmed.

    So back to Va Beach – if he folks that live there want to see the land not developed… then offer to buy it. You can do this.

    You can form a CDA.. and put assessments on property to last for the 30 years or so that it would take to pay off the bonds.

    and it WOULD be not only a legitmate amenity – but a PURCHASED amenity vice a “taking”.

  11. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Larry, You make a very good point: Most people who want to preserve a piece of property as their private amenity are rarely willing to pay for it themselves. But I do know of one case.

    A couple of years ago, the residents of Waterford, an 18th century Quaker village in Loudoun County, were appalled to discover that a neighboring farm had been purchased by someone who intended to develop it for residential. It would have been great for the developer — his property looked upon the ineffably quaint and charming Waterford. It would have been awful for the residents of Waterford, whose views of farm and woodlands for the past 200+ years would change to one of McMansions.

    What did the Waterford residents do? Led by Cate Wyatt, of “Journey Through Hallowed Ground” fame, they raised the money — a sum in the millions of dollars — to purchase the property and hold it in trust. I have enormous respect for people who put their money where their mouth is, and little respect for those who want something for free.

  12. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    First off, Shore Drive and the area around the Lesner bridge (next to where Indigo Dunes would be built) has been allowed to be dramatically over developed – and the roads are overwhelmed. For those that lived in the area a long time, it has ruined their quality of life.

    There is a back lash of “enough is enough”. At what point does the citizenry stand up to those hell bent to ruin everyone’s quality of life to line their own wealthy pockets???

    The homeowners that actually live in the surrounding area can’t do much about the over development already constructed – so they are doing what they can to put an end to the total destruction of their corner of our city.

    This project (Indigo Dunes) is proposed on the other side of the Lesner Bridge – on the inside of the Lynnhaven Bay.

    It will replace a natural appearance with more development, ruining forever the appeal of the Lynnhaven inlet. Frankly, it is a poster child that motivates such songs as They paved paradise and put up a parking lot ….

    The developers (Sandlers) are politically well-connected – mega wealthy, and view land as a field in which they harvest greenbacks.

    They “donated” millions of dollars to the city to have their name on the overly expensive taxpayer subsidized Performing Arts Theater in the massively taxpayer subsidized “Town Center”.

    They recently bought up a huge trailer park near Town Center – and kicked out all the low income workforce living there. So much for “affordable housing” – hey, there is money to be made. Let the trailer trash find somewhere else to live ….

    In our region the city, as co-conspirators with the Developers have begun a multi-year PR campaign, using tax funds, to advoicate for taxpayer subsidies for – you guessed it “Affordable Housing”; particualrly for city workers…

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Jim – yes .. it’s been done…

    It’s harder for less wealthy ad-hoc neighborhood groups to figure out how to put together – a mechanism to acquire a property to preserve it as an amenity.

    Many folks would rather convince their county not to approve a rezone than offer to buy and preserve it themselves.

    but to be fair – if the county delt with such issues like they do when they take responsibility for private roads – an arrangement where they take the road in return for the property owners paying higher supplementary taxes over 30 years to pay for it.

    If counties offered such a partnership – then the resources and expertise would be available to ordinary citizens also.

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “First off, …Indigo Dunes [area] has been allowed to be dramatically over developed – and the roads are overwhelmed. .. has ruined residents quality of life.”

    But this is not the fault of the land-owner nor the developer and if the land is developable by following the same rules and jumping through the same hoops that others who develop land do – how can one justify treating this developer differently?

    This is classic NIMBY.

    Va Beach and the folks that live around the property had (have?) the opportunity to buy it as a valuable amenity .. to protect and preserve it for their use.

    but it appears what they want to do – is keep it for their use but not pay for it.

    I’m sympathetic to the impacts on quality of life of a county policy to NOT require adequate infrastructure for EVERY development but to heap this on one developer just for this particular project is wrong.

    He should have to fully mitigate his impacts but not be penalized for what the county itself failed to do….

    Isn’t this the same region that is against raising local/regional taxes to pay for transportation infrastructure?

    It’s still possible for the neighborhoods to negotiate a compromise… and in the end – it might well be a smarter approach… because in many of these situations… the land can still be developed… but will end up a worse mess than if something reasonable is done.

Leave a Reply

Read More