The Virginian-Pilot
©
VIRGINIA BEACH
Of all the weapons of persuasion that residents deployed to convince the City Council to oppose a Lake Smith condominium project near their homes, the pontoon boat may have been most effective.
Deanna Rumney, the boat owner, and leaders of homeowners opposing the 166-unit project invited council members over one by one for a boat ride to see the proposed building site from the water. Wine and hors d'oeuvres kept the atmosphere relaxed.
"We wanted them to know we weren't going to be argumentative or pound on them," she said.
Rumney and her neighbors argued the project was too intense for the waterfront property and would lower nearby property values. Council members agreed, and the developer, The Terry-Peterson Cos., pulled its rezoning application this week before it could be heard by the City Council on Tuesday.
"I knew they didn't have the six votes," said John Eason, president of a civic league opposing the project. "I don't know if they had any votes."
"I thought it was too much," said Vice Mayor Louis Jones, who represents the district where the project was proposed. "The community did a good job of presenting their perspective."
Terry-Peterson President Tuck Bowie said in an email that he didn't have time on Friday to comment.
The company's effort "to address issues raised by adjacent residents and the communities in the area has not been successful and thus rather than proceed with the application we have elected to withdraw it," Terry-Peterson's attorney, R.J. Nutter, wrote in a letter to Mayor Will Sessoms.
Developer John Peterson had argued the market was dead for large homes, which the land was zoned for, and he needed to build lower-priced units instead. The rezoning request would have resulted in more than twice as many homes as current zoning allows.
The project, dubbed Waterview at Ridgely Manor, called for 166 single-family homes and a waterfront road circling the development. Peterson had said the units would be priced at around $350,000.
Opponents had to overcome support for the project from the city's planning department and the planning commission's 10-1 vote in favor of it.
Homeowner Darren Skinner, who created a website opposing the project, said the personalized tours given to council members made the difference.
"That was the best strategy we could have used," he said. "We're just glad we were able to overcome. We thought there would be strength in numbers from the community, and if we barked loud enough the City Council would hear us, and that's what happened."
Aaron Applegate, (757) 222-5122, aaron.applegate@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Property rights
I would feel a little sorry for these people if it wasn't for the fact that their waterfront property that has no public access is across the river from this piece of land. Everyone is up in arms about property rights, well guess what the developer owns the property and should be able to build what he wants if it's within reason. It's not like he wants to build ten 25 story apartment buildings on it. Property rights are fine and dandy for you but when someone wants to build something on their own land then you do what you can to stop it.
houses
This may not be true 100% of the time, but if they can sell the McMansion
build a lot of them. The more the house is valued the more the buyer pays in taxes. And the more they pay in taxes the less I have to pay. If
their paying a lot they deserve a little more consideration.
thank goodness
No more condos or townhouses. Waaaay too many in this city now as it is. They have destroyed the beauty of Shore Drive for instance and cranked up the population per square mile causing crazy traffic....on top of the stupid 35mpg speed limit that still needs to be rescinded west of Lesner Bridge.
We need more
More high end houses that no one can afford to buy on little bits of property that have no trees.
Lord knows their property value is already so inflated they won't ever get their money back, those days are over...
Its good to see contracts are now being honored
When their current property owners bough, they bought into a concept and promises of the developer to build a certain style community. Then the developer decided that his proposal contract with the buyers cost him to much money so he wanted to void the contract. Under the current cries to void contracts that cost business more than they budgeted for, it is refreshing to see someone deciding to honor their original contract. If only other groups would do the same, tea party.
welcome to the beach
So much for inclusionary zoning. You can build all the housing you want for the middle class just don't do it in my city. I'm glad all you teachers are working so hard to teach my kids and police and fire fighters are working so hard to protect us. I will continue to support all you do as long as you continue to live somewhere else.
Why does housing for middle
Why does housing for middle class have to be high density apts or condos? This has nothing to do with middle class...it has to do with high density apts in the backyard of a neighborhood...high density apts which will add traffic and noise, bring in rats and roaches from the wetlands around the lake (because of the "high density dumpsters") and which will deteriorate over time as all high density housing projects do. All of these factors contribute to lowering the property values of the existing properties. Furthermore, the current property owners bought their properties understanding specific plans for the development of the rest of the area, which did not include high density housing projects.
Are the people that post on
Are the people that post on here incapable of reading what the article says? This is not about "high density apts or condos". The development was for a 166-unit, single-family condo project that were to be built as a condominium property. They were not going to be 750 square foot apartments, one on top of the other! I live in a very nice condominium townhouse project, all of which are over 2000 square feet and are probably as nice as these so-called luxury homes. Developers who once had visions of big, beautiful, expensive neighborhoods, have had to back track. Guess what North Shore at Ridgely Manor owners, in a couple of years you might be begging for this "single family home project", to be built, when the lots sit empty.
Perspectives
From the viewpoint of the current property owners and residents, the proposal WAS a high-density program. While I will never be able to afford, nor want to live in an exclusive ares such as exists there now, I can emphasize with those who do. As was said, they bought with a certain expectation, and have every right to have that expectation met. The concept of changing the rules now strikes me as a case of "sour grapes".
Had the developer proposed a
Had the developer proposed a plan to build smaller, more affordable single family homes rather than high density housing, he may have had a different response from the community. Affordable single family homes would bring the pride of home ownership to the teachers, police officers, and firemen you speak of...those who would take care of their properties and maintain the standards of living for the community that would contribute to maintaining, or even increasing, property values. Unfortunately, developers want to milk every extravagant dollar they can out of their "investment" by only building half-million dollar homes (which only the rich can afford) or cramming people in like sardines (negative impact on community).