SUFFOLK
Most folks driving on Route 17 through north Suffolk have seen the little marina and restaurant as they cross Bennetts Creek - rustic, old-school, located at the dead-end of a country road, framed by pristine marshes.
In recent months, however, the Harbour Side Marina and Restaurant, a local landmark known for years as Bennetts Creek Marina and Restaurant, has been in hot water with state and local regulators.
They are concerned that the new owner, Nat Compton, took advantage of a waterfront-construction exemption following Hurricane Isabel in 2003 and expanded his facility without environmental permits.
The case illustrates the maze of regulatory agencies that are supposed to manage shoreline developments, including piers, marinas, hotels and bulkheads, and how difficult enforcing the rules can sometimes be - especially in the wake of a major storm that destroys those structures.
The Virginia Marine Resources Commission tried Tuesday to bring some closure to the complex Suffolk case, though officials conceded that more bridges must be crossed.
For one, the 46-slip marina still lacks a state health certificate, which is required for any such business to operate. The certificate lapsed when the previous owner sold the place to Compton about eight or nine years ago, according to state records and officials.
The marine commission, which regulates coastal ecosystems, affirmed an earlier Suffolk Wetlands Board decision that required Compton to remove most of the floating piers installed after Isabel, and to yank up an unpermitted outdoor deck where dining and partying often occur on warm nights.
At the same time, the commission lifted a temporary ban that shut down a section of the restaurant where tinted glass windows offer panoramic views of Bennetts Creek and its shoreline wetlands.
State officials said the special section was approved in 1992 - before Compton bought the facility - as a screened, outdoor waiting area, not as a covered dining room.
The section was open for business by noon Tuesday.
Compton, a fisherman by trade, said he remains baffled by what he did wrong, claiming that other state and federal agencies told him to proceed with his reconstruction plans after Isabel.
He noted that former U.S. Sen. George F. Allen said as much, too, during a marina tour after the hurricane. Under an emergency decree from then-Gov. Mark R. Warner after the storm, people who lost waterfront structures could rebuild without new permits if they stayed within the same footprint and could prove it.
Ben Stagg, an environmental manager with the state marine commission, said Compton's reconstruction plans, which he drew by hand, went "way beyond the existing footprint" and would not likely have been approved if presented that way.
The state got wind of the expansion because of complaints from neighbors, who noticed increased boat and car traffic, more outdoor parties and more noise.
About 50 people presented a petition to the Suffolk Wetlands Board in March, urging that after-the-fact permits for the deck and floating piers be rejected and the structures removed. "Give us our quiet, peaceful community back," said David Saunders, one of the petitioners.
There is no timetable for the structures to be removed, with Suffolk and state officials saying they will discuss their next moves. Compton also can appeal Tuesday's decision to a state Circuit Court.
The case has been delayed multiple times, which has complicated matters. Compton asked for continuations twice because he said he was bitten by a spider. His attorney resigned about a month ago, and on Tuesday, Stagg said Compton contacted the state just before 9 a.m. to say he was having car trouble and might not get to Newport News for a hearing.
"It's been different," Stagg said afterward, shaking his head, "I'll say that."
Scott Harper, (757) 446-2 340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
WOW
Mr. Saunders obviously needs something to keep him busy. My husband and I LOVE this restaurant and eat there quite often. We have never witnessed loud parties or noises for that matter, and we've been eating there for at least 15 yrs. The road to the marina has not changed...it's the same road we've always traveled. Some people just aren't happy unless they have something stirred up.
Nothing better
Face it, Don is the only one of us trolls who actually get's quoted in newspaper stories. I love arguing with the guy. I may even make him my dentist and strike up a political conversation and not tell him it's me. However, I would hope that Mr. Tabor realizes that by removing wetlands for a deck and piers does nothing to help kayakers, or improve view and access. In fact, additional boats are not the friend of the kayaker.
FYI
Wetlands don't have be vegetated to be considered wetlands. Mudflat = non-vegetated wetlands.
Ok
I am not trying to be argumentitive CB, but if that is the case having a permit approved would not be a problem. I am familiar w/ the process and it has very little political input. It's science. As it is a "mudbank" we know it meets the hydrology criteria. I am all for the restaurant serving up delicious meals and I love floating piers, but the Isabel connection is pretty weak. Exceeding the footprint has occured.
Killing the goose
What environmental absolutists forget is that if they want wide public support for protecting the environment, the public must have some access to wild places in order to develop an appreciation for their value. Venues such as this restaurant allow people who would never climb into a kayak and paddle the creek to enjoy and value the view it provides. You can sit in comfort there and see herons hunting on the opposite bank and having done so, the creek gains value in your eyes.
In their fanatical zeal to separate the public from the environment, environmentalists are hastening the day hen people will lose sight of the value of wild places altogether and support for preserving the environment will fade away. If we want people who don't go into the wetlands to fish or hunt, or just enjoy paddling around, to place value on Bennet's Creek, you have to let them at least see it.
As mentioned below... just
As mentioned below... just follow lead of Norfolk developers, 'Thirsty Camel, Fishing Piers, roof top bars... build first and deal with it later. If you are "connected" regulations get waived where no permits existed.
This is happening all over Tidewater.
My bad Ira...
I obviously meant Isabel. Now, if you went to the restaurant and surveyed the location, you would walk away wondering where the the "wetlands" are. It is nothing but a mud bank. Sorry to inform anyone of the truth but that is all there is. You go down a hill, park in a small unpaved parking area and boat ramp that borders the creek with a 3 to 4 foot drop to the water. There are other issues that are in the mix here, not protection of something that doesn't exist.
I would like to know how
I would like to know how much these investigations are costing the taxpayer....
CB
"Most of it appears to be quite old lumber so it would be pre-Katrina."
No offense, but you need to read the article before posting. The storm was Isabel, not Katrina. Our area was not affected by Katrina. There are several other issues at this location as well that are resulting in problems such as the health cert.. Aside from that, if every waterfront owner decided to destroy wetlands, then you would have quite a problem. Similiar to what happened in New Orleans. As there are marina operations the need for the buffer for the paved area is needed more than ever at a location such as this.
Wow..
I have eaten there at least 3 times and it is a wonderful place. I cannot see how this solitary tiny restaurant, small deck and a few slips can be such a detriment to wetlands. Most of it appears to be quite old lumber so it would be pre-Katrina. I think something stinks here and it is not protection of wetlands or noise either.
"That is how it works with
"That is how it works with wetland violations. If your neighbor complains then an investigation is started and it can stay local or go all the way up to CHESBLAD in Richmond....depending on how agressive the neighbor wants to be and how much the officials are willing to be manipulated by a few vocal people with a personal aggenda!!"
Actually the neighbor may be the one reporting but their input means nothing. A marina would be checked anyway. You should also note that regardless of the state and local violations, this is a federal issue. DEQ and ACOE have jurisdiction here as well. The locals are the least of his worries.
Suffolk eatery in hot water over expansion
I certainly hope things can be worked out between Mr. Compton (the owner) and the state and local regulators. My family has been eating there for several years and find it to be a wonderful place to go. The food is delicious and I have never been there when it was noisy. Yes, the road that you have to travel to get there winds through a neighborhood ... but, it always has ....
redskin
"I cannot fathom how it negatively influences neighbors. There is no question that the owner should have been more diligent with acquiring the correct permits."
It is the loss of the wetlands, not the the observable impact on the neighbors. Being familiar w/ the permiting, I assure that this person knowingly exceeded what was allowable under any circumstances. A simple case of thinking it is easier to ask for forgivness than permission.
enforcement by complaint
That is how it works with wetland violations. If your neighbor complains then an investigation is started and it can stay local or go all the way up to CHESBLAD in Richmond....depending on how agressive the neighbor wants to be and how much the officials are willing to be manipulated by a few vocal people with a personal aggenda!!
"Good Ole Boys" at Work!
This is a good example of the "Good Ole Boys" of Suffolk with nothing else to do! Mr. Saunders doesn't want to have a seafood resturant in his neighbor. So, he rahter return to the "Good Ole Days!" When only Nansemond County elite ruled the Bennetts Creek area.
The City of Suffolk was successful in denying a pier permit for a Bait and Tackle shop just a few miles north on Rte 17 from the Marina Restaurant a few years ago.
Because the Bait & Tackle Shop pier would have interferred with city plans for a marina at Lone Star Lakes Park area.
"Get Real!"
dumb
Just rename the place " Thirsty Camel " and he will be able to build whatever he wants.
Amazing
I have been eating at that establishment since it was a baitshack and a hotdog stand. Over the years my wife and I have enjoyed taking a late afternoon boat ride to the marina for dinner. I cannot fathom how it negatively influences neighbors. There is no question that the owner should have been more diligent with acquiring the correct permits. But sometimes I think all three levels of government go way overboard. I think Mr. Saunders and his buddies have too much time on their hands. People like him and too many regulations make it hard to have anything nice in this town.
Bennetts Creek Marina and Restaurant
"Give'em an inch, they'll take a mile" Close him down to the original cafe and let them start all over as punishment.
Kings Highway Bridge (KHB) project
A simple, professionally built, attractive dock can't be built without all this back and forth bickering. Imagine how long it would take to obtain all the proper permits and permission to build the very much needed new KHB? My recommendation is for everyone involved in the argument here is to go down to the "illegal" deck and have a "cold one"!!!