The Virginian-Pilot
©
NORFOLK
Two years ago, Michelle Schenck sank her life savings into a bungalow on the Chesapeake Bay, a "forever dream house" with a private deck on the dune and a wide beach just beyond the back door.
She weathered her first major storm there last week - a nor'easter that took a giant chunk of the dune, left the deck lopsided and severed the staircase. Schenck couldn't wait to fix her outdoor sanctuary. She began the repairs Wednesday - the same day a Norfolk official came by and made her stop.
Since then, the city has demolished her damaged deck and staircase.
Others have lost beach access this week, too: Four other walkways and decks have been leveled - with more to come, said Lee Rosenberg, manager of Norfolk's environmental services division.
The city sees the decks as unsafe. They were built on city land, which made them illegal to start with, he said.
For years, the city has wrangled with dozens of Ocean View property owners such as Schenck, who Norfolk leaders say have encroached on the dunes by building decks, staircases and walkways, planting fences and flagpoles, and installing fire pits.
Rosenberg estimates there are 300 to 400 of these encroachments. As land values soared, more people with disposable incomes moved in and wanted to expand their outdoor living space, he said.
"It's really accelerated," he said.
Last summer, city leaders sought compromise instead of punishment. They considered letting some of the structures stay but never made a final decision, Rosenberg said.
But the solution seemed simple this week when it came to decks and walkways pummeled in the nor'easter, Rosenberg said: Anything built on public land is public property. Therefore, the city has the right to tear down damaged structures.
Rosenberg pointed to an elaborate construction perched atop the dune a few houses from Schenck's with an observation deck, a gazebo and a "private" sign on the railing. The storm chewed the sand from around the deck's pilings. It, too, Rosenberg said, would be condemned.
"It's as if someone built a gazebo in front of the Boardwalk at Virginia Beach" and told people to keep out, he said.
Rosenberg said such structures obstruct views and can harm the dunes. Some were not built to code, he said, and if someone were injured on them, the city could be held liable.
"I've been a pretty big defender of people who've had these a long time. But you can't authorize reconstruction of something that was done illegally to start with," said Councilman W. Randy Wright, who toured the Ocean View area Friday morning with Rosenberg, Councilman Don Williams and Assistant City Manager Stanley Stein.
"I didn't realize there were that many private walkways," Williams said as they surveyed the beach strewn with debris and mounds of tangled grass.
Homeowners will need a special permit from the city to replace structures torn down or condemned, Rosenberg said.
That doesn't seem right to Schenck, who moved to Hampton Roads a few years ago, eager to find a place to live with water views. She thought she could afford only a condo before discovering the two-bedroom, one-bath East Ocean View bungalow built in 1930. Its deck offered panoramic views of the Bay that made it more appealing and valuable, she said.
Still, Schenck said, she proceeded cautiously, meeting with the city building department three times before closing on the property. "I covered every base. Not once did anyone tell me it was illegal."
That news came only after she'd moved in.
"I don't know what more I could have done to prevent this. I thought I did my due diligence," Schenck said.
Both she and a neighbor, Theresa Cipriano, whose deck also was torn down by the city this week, believe their losses will diminish their property values.
"The reason I bought my house was because it had beach access and a great deck and a walkway to the beach. I would not have bought it otherwise," Cipriano said.
She was meeting with a contractor about getting her deck fixed when it was demolished.
No one warned her, she said. "I was at home. They could have knocked on my door and told me."
Wright defended the city, saying again that the deck was on public property and presented a safety hazard.
Schenck said city officials seized an opportunity to get rid of structures they didn't want in the first place. "They're taking advantage of a disaster."
But Rosenburg said that's not the city's intention. "Obviously, it hurts to tell someone it has to go," he said.
He'll be having a lot more of those conversations. Decks still leaned against dunes reduced to cliffs Friday morning. The city will be out again next week inspecting them.
Kristin Davis, (757) 222-5208, kristin.davis@pilotonline.com

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo


Permits
We still haven't heard IF these residents HAD BUILDING PERMITS. If they did... issued by the City .... then the City is 'wrong' because they now want to change their minds. Who gets by in Hampton Roads building without a building pemit? (the city gets revenue for the permit/permits) And are these residents paying taxes on the improvements that were made to their property?
I don't see how walkways
I don't see how walkways will harm the dunes. That's silly. My point is this:
I'm all for property rights, but these walk ways which begin on private property crossover onto the beach, which is city property. Each public access way has a sign noting that the beach is city property. When you build one of these walkways, you encroach on city property. You wouldn't like it if the city encroached on yours without your permission, now would you? So, the walkways are illegal and since they are at least partially on city property, the city has the legal right to remove them.
They also have the right to require residents to get a permit before building such structures.
Seeing as how I walk the beach, usually at night, since it gets dark earlier now, and my schedule doesn't permit much other choice, I'm happy to see them gone. I can't remember how many times I've mistaken the private walkways for the public ones when trying to exit the beach. Y'all may want to have your private walkways gated if you rebuild them.
Ocean View Illegal Structures and Fighting City Hall
Let's see... in all cities I have lived in (Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Chesapeake-Suffolk)a building permit is required for any improvement to the property. If the city approved these (no matter how long ago it was) the city is at fault. They can't change their minds now that they want to see things differently on the beach. And aren't tax dollars paid by the homeowner for any 'improvements' to the property? Have they been paid all these years? More than likely yes! Think about it 1)you submit a plan to the city 2)it gets approved by 'someone' in the building department 3)permit gets paid for by the builder/homeowner for the new structure 4)city gets revenue for the improvements to the property via taxes. Now the city wants to change their minds. What a pity the homeowners did not know the city could change their policies with the wave of their magic wand. Still got your building permits residents?? Some might say why would I keep those after all these years. Documentation. You never know what the cities will try to do years down the road. Signed, from someone who has been through similar circumstances and the documentation held up and the city had to back down!
You're right
They were supposed to get a permit. Your argument works if the "builder" (used lightly) followed the law and got one. Chances are they did not. And if not, they did not pay taxes on them. So the question is, did they really get permits. Is so, can they prove it? They might have an argument if they can.
Harm to the dunes?
From the article: "Rosenberg said such structures obstruct views and can harm the dunes."
The whole reason many of these walkway structures were put there by homeowners in the first place was for beach access so as to avoid walking on and damaging the dunes. These structures not only protect the dunes from foot traffic, but also act as an anchor and sand trap to build up the dunes even more.
I also wish some people here could evolve beyond the class-warfare mentality and not attack someone just for being fortunate enough to own beachfront property, particularly in an area so rich with beaches. It just comes off sounding so petty. I don't own beach property, but I congratulate those that do. And if I did own beach property I would surely want nice access to the beach from my house, and thus I don't think walkways for this purpose and that keep foot traffic off the dunes are unreasonable.
Sounds to me like the city was too cowardly to address this issue upfront and head-on or even meet with home owners face to face. So they let Mother Nature, combined with their all-to-convenient and proverbial ‘Unsafe’ declaration do the dirty work for them. A poor decision, in my opi
Harm to the Dunes?
Thank you for your input. I'm surprised that you are not an OV resident, given your comments. You are right-on!
I doubt the sole reason
I doubt the sole reason these were built was to "protect the dunes"
You don't build a gazebo on a walkway to protect a dune, but you build it to enhance the value of the property. You don't build a permanent structure on public property and then call it private.
Did the city "wink" at it. Perhaps they did. But does a "wink" make it legal and acceptable? If a police officer "winked" at me when I was over the speed limit and let me get away with it one time, does that give me a free pass to continue doing it?
It's not class warfare, except for those that have wanting more.
Who is in the wrong here?
I am torn between the city and the homeowners. If there are 400+ of these "illegal" structures, then someone with the city has been asleep at the wheel for decades!
It seems to be another incident of poor timing by our city council and code enforcement officials. Why in the result of a disaster do they feel the need to punish those people who have spent hard earned dollars on improving their homes? I'm sure none of these people intentionally causes a "public safty problem" or would want to compromise the dunes protecting their homes.
Another reason why Mr. Wrong should be voted out of office. Just a jealous whiner. His house sits atop a city built bulkhead! (go figure) I bet the beachfront property owners could easily collect enough signatures to force his recall.
Get Over It Lawbreakers
Illegal is illegal. Homeowners should stop whining and realize that they got away with something for a while and now they can't.
Apparently not every i was
Apparently not every i was dotted nor every t cross. Apparently what you "know" is something that was assumed but not accurate.