HAMPTON
A development plan for Hampton's historic Buckroe Beach has overwhelming support from the City Council. But some residents say opposition is so strong that they will collect enough signatures to send the issue to voters in a referendum.
The city's plan would create up to 80 single-family homes and mansion-style condos on nearly 8 acres of land, one to two blocks from the beach. The hope is that redeveloping the beachfront community will give it new life.
City officials say the proposal preserves public beach access and green space.
"This is all enormously positive for that neighborhood and for the community and for the city as a whole," Mayor Molly Joseph Ward said. Opponents want the land preserved as public park space and don't want new houses closing in on the beach.
"All of this land that they are developing on belongs to the public," said Eddie Deerfield, a retired Navy maintenance supervisor who is helping to lead opposition to the plan. "We are not against development. We are against using public land for it."
His group, Save Buckroe, is collecting signatures from registered voters. The goal is to get 4,500, more than enough to potentially stop the development plan and send the issue to a referendum. The group's deadline is July 10, which is 30 days after the council voted to rezone the properties.
Here's a look at the proposal:
- It includes up to 80 residential units. Development could begin in 30 to 45 days.
- The city selected Buckroe Beach Development LLC, headed by former NFL stars Bruce Smith and William Fuller, to develop one parcel, with an option t o buy two other parcels.
- Developer POH 2010 LLC, led by Tommy Thompson, was chosen to develop a plot with 40 residential units to create a "Parade of Homes" at Pembroke Avenue and North Mallory Street.
- The city wants shops and restaurants along Buckroe Avenue.
- The plan keeps 14 acres of public park space, including the 10-acre park along the beach.
"Nothing's being done to limit access to the beach and there's nothing being done to diminish the 10-acre park," said James Eason, Hampton's economic development director and former mayor.
City officials appear surprised by the amount of opposition.
The city bought the land in the mid-1980s after the Buckroe amusement park was closed. The park had opened in the late 19th century and included a carousel built in 1920. The development plan, Ward said, is exactly in line with the Buckroe Beach master plan and was the result of years of meetings and public input. The plan was amended in 2007 to include the areas now being discussed.
Deerfield said city officials simply aren't listening to their constituents. In 2006, he said, about 13,000 signed a petition saying they did not want new homes near Buckroe Beach. Money, he said, is what's driving the push for more housing.
"Lack of funds in the city coffer. Because of the way the economy is right now," he said. "There just aren't the people around to buy all these homes."
Councilwoman Angela Lee Leary opposed the rezoning, which passed 6-1.
"You want to be able to fly a kite out here," she said. "This is a destination, and I want to keep it that way."
Opponents of the plan said they will present their petitions to the City Council's clerk on Wednesday. They said that if the issue ends up as a referendum, it could happen in November. But a judge would set a date.
Virginian-Pilot staff writer Cindy Clayton contributed to this report.
Patrick Wilson, (757) 446-2957, patrick.wilson@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Buckroe Development
The Buckroe Bayfront Masterplan was developed with erroneous figures calculating a ratio of 72 renters to 28 owner-occupied homes. The consultant (the 2nd one in 2 years. The 1st one said to make Buckroe an active regional beach)claimed more housing was needed to balance the equation. Actually the ratio is more like 50-50 which the City took 3 years to acknowledge. There is enough privately owned acreage to the south of Point Comfort Ave. for development. A viable developer is at hand with a project perfect for the beach, but City Hall is making it difficult.
The petition is against changing the publicly owned lots to residential. They are needed for light beach-related commercial, but more importantly for parking for the multitudes of families that come for relaxation. 13,000 people signed a petition 3 years ago in favor of no housing. The City's online survey was approximately 590 to 10 for no housing, yet the City proceeded to solicit a developer for a Parade of Homes and sell the land for much less than what it is worth. This is taxpayer-owned land.
Just don't get it
The East Coast is crazy. All up and down the seaboard homes and hotels have been built right up to the beach, almost always resulting in reduced access and eventually, a run down eyesore and problem area. Another case of the "me now" attitude rather than a longterm civic attitude. Eventually hurricanes, nor'easters and daily errosion will take their toll on these developments, to which more tax dollars (from our kids) will be spent to protect private assets. These mitigation efforts rarely work and usually exacerbate the problem or move it up or down the beach depending on the type of structure used.
And while this article says access will be preserved, rest assured the occupants of the mansions and condo's being built will not want you parking on "their" streets to access the beach. So unless there are efforts made to truly accomodate the realistic parking load within a reasonable walking distance, there is no real access.