Va. Beach to begin Cape Henry sand replenishment

Posted to: Environment News Virginia Beach

VIRGINIA BEACH

Crews will soon start putting sand on the bayfront beaches between the Lesner Bridge and First Landing State Park.

The Virginia Marine Resources Commission on Tuesday expanded the city’s initial sand replenishment permit from Jade Street west to the Lesner Bridge.

The commissioners voted unanimously, despite opposition from some residents who argued that sand could be placed on the beach without infringing on their property rights. Those same residents also said the case was being rushed through.

The public’s interest in maintaining the beach and protecting some of the buildings from sand erosion and storm damage overrides the concerns of the private landowners, commission members said.

They also said they didn’t want to clash with last week’s Virginia Beach Circuit Court decision that allowed the city to condemn some land along the Chesapeake Bay for the replenishment project and for public recreation and construction easements.

“We’re certainly very pleased with the outcome,” said Tuck Bowie, president of The Terry Peterson Cos. , which owns the former Duck-In site. The city initially left his company’s property off the permit, but it will now be included.

City officials have insisted that they needed to have some type of public access easement from all 21 waterfront property owners and condominium associations before the Army Corps of Engineers would place the sand on the beach.

The city took four of the property owners to court last week to get the easements.

Louis Paulson, a property owner and an attorney, said he and others are giving up more than the easements. They also are relinquishing any right to the future growth of their properties.

Currently, if sand naturally drifts onto their beach, increasing its size, that land belongs to the private property owners, Paulson said.

Under the easements and permit, if the city dumps sand into the water, which is state-owned bottomland, future natural sand buildup in the area would belong to the state.

Marine resources commission staff and members said they were concerned that property owners would lose these rights as a result of the replenishment project.

A court will have to decide how important those rights are and how much the city should pay private landowners for that loss, said Kyle Schick, a commissioner.

“I do see that as something that needs to be discussed,” Schick said.

The Corps of Engineers opened bids for the dredging and nourishment project Tuesday and expects to award a contract by Friday to qualify for federal stimulus money.

The work could start as early as Aug. 10 and last into November.

Much of the sand will likely be placed in front of the Westminster-Canterbury retirement community, the former Duck-In site and the Harbour Gate Condominiums next door, locations where the erosion has been particularly intense in recent years, a corps official said.

Paulson has vowed to appeal the Circuit Court decision, and the property rights case will likely continue winding through the legal system.

Deirdre Fernandes, (757) 222-5121, deirdre.fernandes@pilotonline.com

 

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.

Get real

The reason it is starting in front of WC is the amount of City Taxes they pay. Remember this place broke ground and started construction (the new wing) before the bonds were approved. What WC wants, WC gets.

sounds straightforward, but...

having talked to one of the private landowners, and having asked why his group wanted to keep the beach private, he pointed out several reasons I hadn't thought about.

One was that in formally agreeing to let the public use the privately owned land, there would liability issues over any calamities occurring to the public there.

Another was because the city said that if they agreed to make it public, they'd have to abide by the city's rules: they would no longer be able to drink a beer on their beach, walk their dogs when they wanted to, have a campfire, nor other similar activities you can enjoy on private property.

not completely true

you already can't drink or have a fire on the beach without a permit. These beaches have always been public - the police patrol them, the city picks up trash and rakes the sand. People walk on the beach, swim and fish.

The city did the right thing and the courts and the VMRC agreed.

An issue of where to put dredged sand

This is not a question of beach replenishment holding off Mother Nature as much as it is an issue of the city and the Corp of Engineers needing somewhere to put all the sand that is dredged from Lynnhaven Inlet to keep it open and safe for boaters. It is much cheaper to deposit the sand a short distance away than to have to pay to have it hauled off somewhere else. As the article said, the Federal Government cannot be a part of beach replenishment on private property.

Those complaining about those beaches being private should no longer get police patrols or any sort of city clean up if they aren't allowing the public to use them. Those property owners should be sent a bill from the city for patrolling and cleaning up those beaches all these years. Those are extra services the rest of us shouldn't have to be paying for if the public doesn't have access to those areas.

They are paying

Look at the Harbor Gate building and guess how much property tax is paid by all of those property owners sitting on a couple of acres. This pays for trash collection.

If . . .

If the beach was public, I'd agree with you. Since it's not, why should the rest of us be forking out for their trash collection and their police patrols?

Sand should NOT be replenished.

I wonder if the same people pushing for sand to be replenished believe that global warming is caused by man? If so, do you really think we should interfere with nature taking back some of the shoreline? Trying to fight prevent the sea from taking what it wants is senseless. Why waste our tax dollars on this?

We need the sand!

Hooray to the City for pursuing this issue on behalf of the citizens. We really need the sand. It's startling how much beach we've lost over the past few years. I'm glad we didn't have to wait for disaster to strike (like in Sandbridge) before we started managing the Bayfront.

YES

There are so many who don't realize how important that is. I live in Hampton and I can't begin to tell you how the breaching of Factory Point has gotten to the point of total destruction of soooo very much that is valuable. Now, it is going to cost the taxpayers, thanks to the LACK of support of Army Corps of Engineers as well as the city, and believe it or not, THE CITIZENS who don't have roots here and obviously are knowledgeable or care. This really is an issue. For the whole entire area. So many people just take things for granite until it is too late.

Good Job!

I am all for the city keeping our beaches public!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

More articles from: Environment rss feed    News rss feed   



Toolbox


special features