A pedestrian was struck in the 2800 block of Shore Drive around 11 p.m. Thursday.
Read article at Pilotonline.com.

2nd Police Precinct as of the time of this post had no additional info.

SDCC General Meeting – Monday June 30, 2008, 7:30 to 9:00pm
Ocean Park Volunteer Rescue Squad Hall (parking in back, on side streets and across Shore Drive)

Program/Presentation – Mr. Lou Paulson, Posieden Court Condominiums, will be discussing viewpoint as to why it’s a bad idea for Cape Henry Beach landowners to sign over a public easement to the City for sand replenishment. The Sand Replenishment project is one that has been discussed for awhile and has a potential project date of late 2009/early 2010. If you are in favor or against, come on out and hear Mr. Paulson’s views.

The general agenda for the evening will be:

Officer’s Reports – Brief Reports
Secretary – Tim
Treasurer’s Report – Leslie
Vice President & President – Daphne & Todd

Old Business-
Indigo Dunes Project – Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) held a Public Meeting on Monday June 9th, that was attended by over 130 residents in opposition to the project. DEQ’s report is in favor of the plan. The deadline for public comment was June 24th. SDCC has submitted a box of documents and opposition letters in hopes to persuade the Water Control Board (WCB) to vote against this project at their July 28th meeting. The WCB is scheduled to meet on July 28th in Richmond and vote on this project.

Lynnhaven Boat Ramp (LBR) Proposed Spoils Transfer Station – Many Ocean Park residents have been involved in identifying the problems with this project. Due to their diligence, it appears that the LBR has been moved down on the list of possible sites. Council is pursuing possible land purchases as an alternative. Also, as a testament to the opposition’s concerns, a barge recently ran into the Lesner Bridge justifying the community’s opinion that the project would create too large a risk.

Proposed Rezoning of City Marina – Planning Commission review is scheduled for July 9th at noon in City Council Chambers. SDCC plans to take a vote at our June 30th general meeting, so please come prepared to discuss and vote. Visit the website for latest proffers and restrictions. Remember, the current arrangement is a money making venture for the City, about $50,000 per year. Making it a private venture runs the risk of losing this income.

Phase IV Shore Drive Demonstration Project – A citizen information meeting was held on Thursday May 22nd regarding the planned improvements to Shore Drive between Marlin Bay and East Stratford Rd in the Ocean Park area. Several street closures and median cut fill-ins are planned for this area. Attendance was small to the public meeting, so Ocean Park may want to get information directly to its effected residents. SDCC has asked for electronic versions of the presentation and will forward as soon as they are received.

SDCC Oyster Roast – Mark your calendars for Saturday Nov 15th from noon until 4pm at the VB Resort Conference Hotel. Committee meetings will begin in July. Volunteers are needed, email Todd if you’re interested in helping. Todd@sdcc.info

SDCC Officer Nomination Committee – The nominating committee is getting an early start for the upcoming election of 2008/9 officers. If you are interested in running or know of anyone that may be, please contact Dan Creedon at DanVaB@aol.com. The committee will make their presentation of names at the October 27th general meeting.

New Business –

Action Plans for PHP – Discuss and vote on any actions or position statements. Email campaign, Should we send emails to the WCB before the July 28th meeting? Should we call them beforehand? Discuss how we want to best use our legal counsel for the Richmond meeting. Who needs to go to the Richmond meeting, should be rent a bus?

City Council Candidate Forum and Questionnaire – Where should a forum be held? When should it be held? Who should be the moderator? What type of format should it follow? Be prepared to discuss these questions and volunteer for the forum committee. Also be thinking of questions for a candidate questionnaire.

The applicant proposes to permanently impact 2.35 acres of tidal wetlands.  We maintain
that these impacts are sufficient to deny the permit application given the significantly
impaired state of the Lynnhaven River and the Chesapeake Bay.
The Lynnhven River is already significantly impaired as evidenced by state and federal
decisions and activities.  Ten years ago, the state listed much of the Lynnhaven River as
impaired in Virginia’s 1998 303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Priority List
and Report.  The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) under the
ongoing TMDL process is currently addressing the impairments to the Lynnhaven River
and meetings have been held in the watershed to discuss the TMDL plan for the River.
indigo-permit-letter-DEQ.pdf [3pg pdf]

Visit WetlandsWatch.org.

One argument submitted by SDCC today requesting the denial of DEQ’s Draft Permit proposal for Indigo Dunes.

Special thanks to everyone who was involved in putting together this particular comprehensive legal document clearly outlining how, by law, this application must be denied.

Dear Shore Drive Residents,

Your help is desperately needed to stop the largest development to ever be built in the Shore Drive corridor.  The regional DEQ has issued a preliminary permit in favor of the Indigo Dunes project that will destroy over 1.5 acres of wetlands and allow 1069 new residents in the most densely populated area of Virginia Beach.

What can you do?  A simple email in opposition to the project would help tremendously.  The deadline to send emails is Tuesday June 24th.  The email can be in your own words or a simple forward of the following draft.

As of the writing of this post, DEQ’s email is “down” and they do not have any idea when it might be back up. Currently – the drop dead date on comments is still close of business Tuesday, June 24th.

As many of you know, their email has been down since at least Saturday.

Regulator at DEQ suggested writing a letter or faxing instead of email as “email goes down all the time here”.
Address & fax information for DEQ’s local office.

Dear Ms. Kattan,

I am adamantly opposed to the proposed Indigo Dunes project and request that it be denied based on the following reasons:

1.    Based on previous evaluation, VADEQ should not consider issuing a provisional permit for these same wetland fills. 

2.    The proposal has no justifiable hardship and by law should be denied. 

3.    VA DEQ should not even consider issuing a provisional permit for this project based on similar violations identified by DEQ sister agency CBLAD. 

4.    We strongly believe an independent 3rd party Functional Assessment should be completed as several agencies do in fact find value in the wetlands slated for destruction with this draft permit.

5.  Zero wetland and riparian buffer impact must be a non-negotiable requirement.  As the law states, avoidance of wetland destruction must come before mitigation.  100% avoidance is possible.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

(Place your name here)

The email should be addressed to Ms. Sheri Kattan of the local DEQ.  Her email address is sakattan@deq.virginia.gov  Also include Tim Solanic on your email so the SDCC can maintain a copy in case DEQ loses theirs.  Tim’s email is tim@sdcc.info.
Address & fax information for DEQ’s local office.

Thank you for your help in saving the wetlands and the quality of life in our community.

Todd Solomon
Shore Drive Community Coalition – President

Visit http://www.sdcc.info for additional information regarding the Bayfront area.

Emailed Ms. Kattan & Mr. Daniel the following email which was also kicked back as a “permanent failure” at 9:10am Monday, June 23rd 2008.

Final-Recipient: rfc822;sakattan@deq.virginia.gov
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure)
Remote-MTA: dns; [192.234.164.3]
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 5.1.0 – Unknown address error 550-‘5.7.1 Unable to relay for sakattan@deq.virginia.gov’ (delivery attempts: 0)

Final-Recipient: rfc822;fldaniel@deq.virginia.gov
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure)
Remote-MTA: dns; [192.234.164.3]
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 5.1.0 – Unknown address error 550-‘5.7.1 Unable to relay for fldaniel@deq.virginia.gov’ (delivery attempts: 0)

—————Forwarded message—————
From: “Tim Solanic – Shore Drive Community Coalition”
To: fldaniel@deq.virginia.gov, “Sheri Kattan”
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:03:20 -0400
Subject: test email
Hello,

I have received multiple emails from people saying their emails did
not get through to DEQ over the weekend.

They received this message:

###
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

The following message to was undeliverable.
The reason for the problem:
5.1.0 – Unknown address error 550-‘5.7.1 Unable to relay for
fldaniel@deq.virginia.gov’

###

This is the message I’ve received from emailing Ms. Kattan last evening as well:

###

The following message to was undeliverable.
The reason for the problem:
5.1.0 – Unknown address error 550-‘5.7.1 Unable to relay for
sakattan@deq.virginia.gov’

Final-Recipient: rfc822;sakattan@deq.virginia.gov
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure)
Remote-MTA: dns; [192.234.164.3]
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 5.1.0 – Unknown address error 550-‘5.7.1 Unable
to relay for sakattan@deq.virginia.gov’ (delivery attempts: 0)

###

Emails were also automatically responded in the same fashion when
addressed to fldaniel@deq.virginia.gov.

In regards to the “permanent failure” to deliver concerned citizens emails:

How will DEQ, the State Water Control Board & others know how many
people have emailed comments & what those comments are?

How will people who’ve taken the time to email their comments know the
appropriate people have received them?

How many of those who’ve emailed who receive the “undeliverable”
automated email will believe that their voice is being heard by the
Commonwealth?

How many of those who’ve received the “undeliverable” automated email
will actually understand it, and attempt to email the appropriate
people again in time for the Public Comment Period end date?

What kind of steps do you believe are appropriate to remedy this?

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention & advice on this critical matter.

Sincerely yours,

Tim Solanic
Shore Drive Community Coalition

CityMarina-PlanningJuly08.pdf [2pg PDF]

In case you missed the article in the Pilot:
Starting in early 2009, a new, 220,000-square-foot building will begin to rise at the marina. It will be built in five stages and take between five and 10 years, she said, and is to feature retail on the lower level with office space above.
Read article & comment at Pilotonline.com.

Be sure to email DEQ by June 24th and ask them to deny Indigo Dunes any permit.

Great to know our local media still apparently believes the barge strike on the Lesner Bridge isn’t worth covering.

Wonder if the tourists on the boat tell their friends back home about the crane fixing the damaged bridge.

…- the development would replace man-made drainage ditches with man-made wetlands, which would improve stormwater flow and clean the water that drains into the Lynnhaven River.

Reality is this current slightly altered proposal would in fact destroy viable wetlands.
Must admit the editor who wrote this has come around to the facts the development is too large & still faces many, many hurdles.
Read entire editorial and comment at Pilotonline.com.

This event is a great, great time!

REQUEST FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT
for
DONATIONS FOR FIREWORKS
Make Checks to CSBTS (Cape Story by the Sea) FireWorks
and mail to
CSBTS
PO Box 700
Virginia Beach, Va 23451

and VOLUNTEERS for ALL July 4th Events

    CALL FOR MANLY TRUCKS
to transport shells over the dune for fireworks

(1PM at First Landing Park- takes about an hour or so.
Please contact Todd Solomon at 496-5733 or todd@sdcc.info )

This year’s parade and brunch will take place from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm on Friday July 4th.  The parade route will start on Beech at the bike path, proceed down Beech to Poinciana, follow Poinciana to Bayberry, turn left on Bayberry and end in the neighborhood park. All bike riders, floats and marchers need to line up on BEECH STREET for the parade between 9:30am – 9:45am.

This year’s parade theme is RED, WHITE & BLUE and GREEN – Cape Story saves the environment.  Awards will be given for Most Original, Most Patriotic and Best Theme. Bribing the judges is greatly encouraged!  The parade will be followed by a brunch in the park. There will also be biscuits, doughnuts, fruit and patriotic tunes.

The annual fireworks show will once again be presented by Zambelli Fireworks Internationale. The display will consist of over 700 shells and will be launched around 9:20 pm on Friday July 4th from the beach at First Landing State park. The rain date will be Saturday July 5th at the same time. Please pass the word that personal fireworks should not be launched until after the show. Use of personal firework before the show may result in cancellation.

Volunteers are still needed for all of the 4th of July events.—- Brunch set-up, Brunch Clean-up, Brunch servers – Please Arrive at the park at 9:45am to help.—-Fireworks set-up and clean-up – Trucks and movers are asked to arrive at First Landing at 1:00pm

Trucks and movers are desperately needed for the fireworks.  Last year we had a great group of people to support this event and it ran very smoothly.  Let’s do it again this year.  Please contact Todd Solomon at 496-5733 or todd@sdcc.info
                   
          GET OUT YOUR RED, WHITE & BLUE and Green!!!
                    SEE YOU AT THE PARK on the 4th
                                Empsy Munden, Pres.  CSBTS

What better place to start than counting Bald Eagles on Pleasure House Point?

View Larger Map Click over there then click on “Street View” at the next link.

Cool stuff.

The Design Subcommittee of the Bayfront Advisory Committee will meet at 8:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 17, at the First Landing State Park Trail Center Conference Room.  The Trail Center Conference Room is located at the end of the park road leading south from the Shore Drive park entrance where parking is located to access the nature trails.

The Subcommittee will be continuing its discussions about pursuing recommendations for revisions to the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, the Shore Drive Design Guidelines, private encroachments on City right-of-way, and related matters.

The meeting will be open for the public to observe; however, there will not be an opportunity for the public to participate in the Subcommittee’s deliberations.

For additional information prior to the meeting, call Clay Bernick in the Planning Department at (757) 385-4621.

Thanks to DEQ for providing us the audio from last night’s presentation, Q&A & Hearing.

Audio will be posted at this site sometime tomorrow, Weds.

“In a highly developed watershed, it’s a very serious loss,” said Karen Forget, executive director of Lynnhaven River Now, a nonprofit environmental group.

Over the past three years, there has been a permitted loss of 1.25 acres of wetlands in the river’s watershed, which stretches for 64 miles. The plans for Indigo Dunes calls for the elimination of 2.35 acres, Forget said.

Read & comment at Pilotonline.com.

The proposal still includes destroying wetlands, riparian buffers, all mature trees on the site, and the filling in of Pleasure House Point with up to 7-8ft of unknown fill.
The State Water Control Board will hold a 1 or 2 day Hearing in Richmond tentatively scheduled on July 28th.

This is far from over. Conditional Permit obtained so far is from Army Corp of Engineers. It has conditions that are strongly believed they can not meet. This Hearing, & Hearing coming up in Richmond is for a Conditional Permit. Other Permits required are a Wetlands Permit, Chesapeake Bay Area Preservation Board Permit, Conditional Use Permit from City of VB, City Council approval & others.

Thanks to DEQ for providing the public an evening Hearing.

Thank you for coming out and writing your emails expressing your concerns with a project that would destroy Pleasure House Point.

.

Be sure to email Ms. Kattan your letter!

Dear Ms. Kattan,

Thank you for your willingness to hear feedback on the possible approval by the Department of Environmental Quality regarding JPA #2 submitted by Sandler at Indigo Bay LLC.

You will undoubtedly hear from many who know much more about the technicalities of the environmental impact of this project on this beautiful piece of open space. My main objection to this proposal has always been based on density. However, I cannot understand how this proposal can even be considered when it is inconsistent with laws, such as the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, already in place to protect our environment from this type of destruction. Furthermore, the negative impact on wetlands and marine waters will be permanent – once the destruction is done it cannot be undone.

Now is the time to send a message in support of the efforts of the many volunteers working diligently to protect resources such as the Chesapeake Bay and Lynnhaven River. Now is the time to strictly enforce the regulations in place for that purpose and put a halt to the proposed destruction of our environment and quality of life for the sake of monetary gain. I strongly request that this proposal be rejected.

Yours truly,

Patricia Mirani
Ocean Park Resident
Ocean Park Civic League Board member

.

Be sure to email Ms. Kattan your letter!

Virginia Beach is appealing to Circuit Court a decision by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission to allow the destruction of some wetlands on the site. The VMRC decision and the city’s appeal are based on the Sandlers’ initial application.

The Sandlers will have to start the city approval process from the beginning with the revised plan, according to Kay Wilson, an associate city attorney.

The Sandlers’ representatives disagree. The changes in wetlands impacts are just modifications of the original request, Williams said.

Read & comment at Pilotonline.com.
DEQ Hearing Information for Monday night.

“We’re very encouraged; we think we have a great project,” said Debra Williams, a Sandler spokeswoman. “If people really look at what we have in there, they’ll realize we’re cleaning up a mess.”

Part of the “mess” they are going to bulldoze, & fill in with unknown fill to “clean up”.

.

Be sure to email Ms. Kattan your letter!

Dear Ms. Kattan:

I am writing to you in opposition to the latest Indigo Dunes #2 JPA submission as a revision from previous versions that was submitted in effort to seek approval for perhaps one of greatest threats of destruction to what remains of the Chesapeake Bayfront-Shore Drive area, the Lynnhaven Inlet and its sensitive watershed areas.

This proposal will introduce the final step of devastation to the watershed resources and wetland buffer areas contained within the mouth of the Lynnhaven River at the Chesapeake Bay. This will affect water quality, just as the cumulative effect of all of these types of projects within such wetland RPA’s do. There is historical evidence for that all along the Chesapeake Bay and East coast where wetland areas continue to be eroded in favor of profit. DEQ must take a stand in these matters where it has become clear that avoidance and minimization has not been practiced fully, with less than substantial or even factual justifications being provided. This entire project’s build out rests on one motive only: maximum profit. That is the only aspect of this proposal being pursued to “the maximum extent possible”.

In an earlier letter, you requested the applicant to submit alternate scenarios to an “all or none” proposal, and that would presumably include proposal versions that reduced density and did not require the complete destruction of so much RPA and wetland combined land areas. Where are those submissions from the developer and if they refused, why was this so? I object to the smokescreen they have used that “unless” they completely wipe out and back fill the entire area, they will be unable to effectively clean the combined runoff pollution from Ocean Park and their own overly dense development. That is a diversion and essentially, an extortion, whereby saying if you dont give us what we want, we don’t design an effective pollutant removal system for our own project.

The next unanswered question is: ‘“Who has proven that Ocean Park’s run-off (93 million gallons they report) moves across and then down Marlin Bay into drop inlets that connect to the separate canals?  Why has DEQ not requested proof of this when almost the entire justification for destruction and impact has been turning on this issue (environmental clean-up) according to the applicant? The rationale of the aesthetics of dividing land bays and what it will make the project “look like” is hardly sufficient an explanation. Quite frankly “good environmental stewards” don’t strip, fill and bulkhead 70 acres of wooded-wetland RPA buffer and watershed, build a totally out of proportion development inconsistent with the needs or welfare of the community and then pretend that 50% more impervious concrete and stone, 3000+ more people, their vehicles, pets and property, as well as construction accidents and faulty designs, and any other of a 100 different factors will not disturb and degrade the quality of the community, its resources and the surrounding waters. This is what DEQ is supposed to be evaluating.

Additionally, we want to know who has defined the wetland canals as “valueless, ineffective and impeded, without full tidal inundation”? These were descriptives used in the proposal in order to justify. By observation, those canals, and the RPA-buffers around them are fully exposed to unrestricted tidal flow as defined by water freely moving without obstructed or pressured influence thru the connecting pipes. This is plainly clear during the most intense storm events as well as during any regular tidal changes occurring daily.  We are requesting that an independent provide determination because again, this proposal is making assertions that on the face, are not supported by evidence, and that are being used to justify the reasons for the extent of proposed destruction.  This is not avoidance and minimization to a fullest extent possible, where impact is based fully on the fact that there is no other way to do it, That is clearly not the case. The easiest answer would simply have been: reduce the density. Period. A decision that would have still allowed development but within the prevailing protective regulations as well as for the welfare and good of the public interest. But the applicant developer has refused to do that because to avoid would mean being unable to reaching a profit of “maximum extent possible”. That is exactly why protective regulations are in place and review boards exist: to keep that very type of development such as an INdigo Dunes from happening when it does NOT serve the public’s best interest and worse yet creates an environmental casualty. DEQ, among others is charged with insuring those interests are preserved and protected.

This entire proposal is perhaps the most gross display of greed and arrogance we have witnessed in some time and agencies such as DEQ are not helping the matter, in terms of protecting the public’s welfare and preserving environmental resources that absolutely affect water quality within wetland watersheds. This project proposal does not serve the interests of the greater public good or our long term welfare for all who lie along the Chesapeake Bayfront-Shore Drive area. It is designed with one purpose and one purpose only, maximized profit at any expense This project does not exemplify good stewardship of the environment or an effort to restore, preserve or responsibly manage a communities resources in combination with development that ultimately determine the value and quality of a community. The applicant’s Indigo Dunes is trying to force-shove an elephant into a “small yard baby pool” and convince the neighbors, through the avoidance of facts and truth, that he will be clean and no problem. This is untrue and we are not buying, nor should the public agencies evaluating this project.

I look forward to talking with you at the Public Hearing on the 9th

I am,
Sincerely,

Walt Stone
Ocean Park Resident

.

Be sure to email Ms. Kattan your letter!

FuncValAss-ID-DEQ-6-08.pdf [33pg PDF]

Docs include historical satellite imagery showing Pleasure House Point had far more wetlands.