View story including video at 13NewsNow.com:
“hold city council accountable for what the codes, and rules and guidelines are”
Category Archives: Current Concerns
SDCC Monday Oct. 26th Membership Meeting Agenda 7:30pm at OPVRS Hall
Click here for a printable version of the agenda – 10.26.20 SDCC Agenda
SDCC General Meeting Agenda
Monday October 26, 2020 from 7:30 to 9:00pm
Ocean Park Volunteer Rescue Squad Hall – 3769 East Stratford Rd
(parking in back, on side streets and across Shore Drive)
Special Presentation – None
Officer’s Reports
Secretary – Kathleen Damon; Treasurer’s Report –Tim Solanic; Vice President – Empsy Munden;President – Todd Solomon
Old Business-
Proposed Developments –
- Westminster-Canterbury (WC) High Rise and Memory Center Expansion – City Council approved the expansion on Sept 22. Ocean Shore Condos filed a lawsuit vs City Council on October 20. A Go Fund Me campaign has been created to help pay for legal fees. To date, $15k has been raised of the $30k goal. SDCC requested City Council to reconsider their approval, but no reply was received from them.
- Marina Shores Apartment Expansion – A 60 unit 5 story (65ft tall) building is being proposed along North Great Neck Rd. where the apartment’s tennis courts are currently located. This application is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission in November. The Bayfront Advisory Commission did not support the request to remove the existing condition that limits density to 24 units/acre.
- Marlin Bay Apartment Complex – 227 units 4 story buildings are being proposed at the intersection of Marlin Bay Drive and Shore Drive. The developer cancelled a presentation at the Oct. Bayfront Advisory Commission meeting.
- Windsong Development – 411 units off of Pleasure House Road in Chic’s Beach. This project is scheduled to go before Planning Commission in December.
New Business –
Short Term Rental Overlay Districts Proposed for Ocean Park and Cape Story by the Sea – Councilman Louis Jones and Councilman Jim Wood asked for an ordinance change to create STR overlay districts in Ocean Park and Cape Story which will allow “By Right” use of residents for STRs as long as they meet the guidelines in the code. At the City Council Oct 20 meeting, Ocean Park residents showed up in opposition and Councilman Jones removed the Ocean Park overlay from the ordinance. Councilman Wood has left the Cape Story overlay in place as a challenge to the residents to oppose if they want his overlay removed. If not, then 50% of Cape Story will be “By Right” STR. The BAC will vote at their Nov. meeting on a position for the Bayfont on STR. It is recommended that SDCC vote on a position statement for STR Overlays in the Bayfront and it’s proposed that all overlays be prohibited from the Bayfront.
November SDCC Meeting – Officers from the 3rd Precinct has asked to come to a November meeting to discuss a community policing plan for Ocean Park and other neighborhoods that are experiencing vandalism and break-ins. They plan to do a survey of neighborhoods to gather input on issues. SDCC is working with them to create and promote an online survey.
“There were many more people who were interested in participating in the action but as a practical matter, the number of clients needs to be manageable and these 4 Petitioners are very representative of those adversely effected [sic] by Westminster Canterbury’s approved expansion,” Lauer wrote.
First coverage at 13NewsNow.com:
In the last six days, a GoFundMe launched to raise money for the petitioners has raised more than $13,000.
Multiple Shore Drive Condominium Associations has organized a GoFundMe FUNDRAISER & LAWSUIT vs City of Virginia Beach & WCCB to stop precedent setting high rise in Shore Drive community subjectively approved by 5 City Council members
Westminster Canterbury Expansion-Stop City Council GoFundMe FUNDRAISER link:
Virginia Beach City Council has approved plans to allow a 22 story building expansion of Westminster Canterbury. This will create a structure rivaling Town Center and potentially supporting other high rise development in the Bayfront neighborhoods along Shore Drive. This precedent setting decision was based solely on the opinions of 5 Council Members and not based on quantifiable City codes or requirements.
VIEW LAWSUIT v. VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL, CITY of VIRGINIA BEACH, WESTMINSTER-CANTERBURY on Chesapeake Bay ( 29 page PDF )
Over $11,000 has been raised in just a couple days.
Join us & many others who don’t want to see the Shore Drive community & potentially other areas of Virginia Beach have an explosion of density & high rises due to this arbitrary decision made by 5 people.
Westminster Canterbury Expansion-Stop City Council GoFundMe FUNDRAISER link:
Virginia Beach City Council has approved plans to allow a 22 story building expansion of Westminster Canterbury. This will create a structure rivaling Town Center and potentially supporting other high rise development in the Bayfront neighborhoods along Shore Drive. This precedent setting decision was based solely on the opinions of 5 Council Members and not based on quantifiable City codes or requirements.
Bayfront Advisory Commission (BAC) Meeting Agenda for Thurs. Oct. 15th at 3:30pm. Councilman Jim Wood has been asked to speak on his Short Term Rental Overlay Ordinance
Bayfront Advisory Commission (BAC) Meeting
Thurs. Oct. 15th at 3:30pm at Ocean Park Volunteer Rescue Squad
Councilman Jim Wood has been asked to speak on his
Short Term Rental (STR) Overlay Ordinance
Residents of Cape Story by the Sea and Ocean Park (locations of proposed overlay districts) may want to attend since this may be the only public discussion opportunity other than upcoming Planning Commission and City Council public hearings.
***UPDATE – Both Councilmen Wood and Jones have confirmed their attendance per BAC Chair email***
From: Phil Davenport, BAC Chair
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 8:43 AM
Subject: RE: Tomorrow’s BAC meetingBoth CC members, Jones and Wood, are planning to attend today’s BAC meeting.
Also, because at least one of them needs to leave by 4:30, I will likely move the SRT issue to the first item.
Thank you.
Click here for a printable version of the agenda – BAC Agenda 10.15.20
“This request was approved by the City Council on August 12. On September 9, the City Council, as provided for by Section 107(f) of the City Zoning Ordinance, voted to reconsider the approval of August 12. The City Council established the date of October 28 for that reconsideration to occur.”
In 2003, a thoughtful City Council, after learning more about how Bayvista’s(FORT WORTH DEVELOPMENT INC) original Approval would negatively affect the Shore Drive community because of it’s “mass, density” & “precedent setting” nature – worked on RECONSIDERATION.
City Council August 12 ’03 Approval
View August 12th ’03 City Council Minutes Bayvista Approval
Note: Original Approval was won by 1 vote.
Mayor Obendorf brings up RECONSIDERATION August 26th 2003
City Council August 26 ’03 Reconsideration first discussion PDF
City Council November ’03 Agenda RECONSIDERATION discussion
View November ’03 City Council Agenda for RECONSIDERATION discussion
View November ’03 City Council Minutes of Bayvista Formal Session
“Between now and when the first shovel hits the ground, we’re in ‘let’s stop this thing as it stands’ mode”
Story including video at 13NewsNow Ali Weatherton report.
Mayor Bobby Dyer said his goal is to form a group with community members and the developer to talk about the plans and to keep everyone in the loop.
That’s great news Mayor!
That group being formed now would only makes sense if City Council voted to RECONSIDER.
Horse leaving the barn already & all that.
Bay Vista on Shore Drive in Ocean Park was RECONSIDERED in 2003.
“Mass, density” & “precedent setting” were several items RECONSIDERED by a thoughtful City Council once they learned more.
Councilmember Sabrina Wooten said, “Thank you for your inquiry. Please note that I have not been briefed on this matter in detail. I am not aware that the vote was ruled or determined to be unfair in any way. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.”
We’d love your reply Councilmembers:
Council Members Berlucchi and Wooten should explain their reasons for support. Since the approval of the WC expansion was based solely on Council opinion, all the members provided explanation for their votes except Council members Berlucchi and Wooten. A decision that changes the future of the Bayfont demands that they explain why they ignored the community’s concerns and voted in favor of the project.
“I ask that the council to reconsider the tower vote with at least eight voting members present. Three council members — representing Bayside, Lynnhaven and At-Large — have conflicts of interest, and an additional council member was not able to vote on Sept 22.”
From Pilotonline.com:
I’ve been a resident and single-family homeowner in Cape Story since 1977, where Seagate was the big 13-story condo and Westminster-Canterbury was a big brick building for elderly people to live. The Virginia Beach City Council 5-2 vote approving the 22-story Westminster-Canterbury tower was disappointing: Eight-to-11-stories high seems more appropriate, not 22.
Concern continues about the population explosion on Shore Drive as the Planning Commission continues to approve senior living projects and the council is the last approval needed to go forward.
I ask that the council to reconsider the tower vote with at least eight voting members present. Three council members — representing Bayside, Lynnhaven and At-Large — have conflicts of interest, and an additional council member was not able to vote on Sept 22.
This council can decide if Virginia Beach is to continue to support the strong community engagement of single families or continued high profile growth.
Empsy Munden, Virginia Beach
“It’s appalling how the overwhelming amount of citizens opposed to this precedent-setting monstrosity were ignored. The entire process was appalling. Reconsideration!”
From Pilotonline.com:
Virginia Beach’s lack of civic engagement for a project of this magnitude and impact is appalling. The bayfront residents pride themselves on civil discourse and the ability to work with the city to find compromising solutions. The fact that we were hardly given the chance to discuss our concerns is not acceptable. Many of you, if not all of you, ran election campaigns that championed improved civic engagement for the citizens. We demand that you take the opportunity at your meeting today and reconsider your vote of Sept. 22.
Denying the proposed Westminster-Canterbury On The Bay expansion will allow the necessary city-facilitated civic dialogue to take place to make an informed decision of this magnitude. A smaller, less dense development would be an acceptable compromise that will keep future development of the bayfront in accordance with codes, plans and guidelines. It would also allow Westminster-Canterbury residents to enjoy their new amenities and City Council to enjoy an increase in tax revenue.
Keeping the approval of the high-rise, high density project will lead to a bayfront that resembles the Virginia Beach Town Center and result in the loss of our neighborhood.
It’s appalling how five people have currently chosen to ignore the rule of law they’re charged to enforce. It’s appalling how the overwhelming amount of citizens opposed to this precedent-setting monstrosity were ignored. The entire process was appalling. Reconsideration!
Tim Solanic, Virginia Beach
“Have we all been bought and sold?”
From Pilotonline.com:
Have we all been bought and sold? The article on the vote for the out-of-scale 22-story retirement home expansion makes me ask this question.
To change our community and its future development on such a large scale with only a couple evening meetings is outrageous.
Through our City Council’s callous disregard of previously agreed zoning measures, we are opening up ourselves and our community to unchecked development of new high-rises along the beach, subsequently, destroying our culture and restricting our access to the very things that attracted us to the Lynnhaven way of life.
Where are the advantages of such a development to our community?
Councilman Guy Tower’s pathetic assessment of the proposed 250-foot glass tower is meaningless; his supporters must be cringing with embarrassment. Council members Louis Jones, Rosemary Wilson and Jim Wood could not vote due to conflicts of interest. With this being the district Wood represents, I am left unsettled.
I am sure that attorney Jeanne Lauer will find much more support within the community. After speaking to many of my neighbors and people in the community, it is quite evident that the council is not voting with the wishes of the people they represent.
John Samuel, Virginia Beach
SDCC asks City Council to Reconsider Vote on Westminster Canterbury High Rise High Density Development
Official email sent to City Council asking for reconsideration of vote to approve Westminster Canterbury high rise high density expansion. Click here for printable version Request to CC to Reconsider WC Vote
Supporting documents:
Failure to provide HUD affordable housing;
1998 acknowledgement of 165ft senior housing height limit
=========================================================================
Dear Mayor Dyer and Council Members Berlucchi, Wooten, Tower and Henley,
The Shore Drive Community Coalition (SDCC), as voted at our September 28, 2020 meeting, formally requests City Council at your October 6th meeting to reconsider the approval vote of the Westminster Canterbury (WC) application heard on September 22, 2020.
It is our understanding that Council has a 2 week period to reconsider votes made at formal Council hearings. There are a multitude of reasons the vote for the WC application should be reconsidered, several of them are listed below. It is our hope that at least two of you will agree to reconsider your erroneous decision.
Reasons why Council needs to reconsider the WC application vote of September 22nd:
- Council Member Abbott should be allowed to vote. Abbott was unable to attend the vote due to a family emergency, but with only 8 members able to vote as a result of conflict of interests, allowing all qualified voting members a chance to participate is a necessity. Decisions like the WC application that are based solely on Council’s opinions need to have all voting members participate.
- Council Members Berlucchi and Wooten should explain their reasons for support. Since the approval of the WC expansion was based solely on Council opinion, all the members provided explanation for their votes except Council members Berlucchi and Wooten. A decision that changes the future of the Bayfont demands that they explain why they ignored the community’s concerns and voted in favor of the project.
- WC’s claim that a density of +255% over code is needed to eliminate the approaching silver tsunami is irrelevant. This high density development will not provide enough housing for all the seniors that will be part of the tsunami, nor is it this project’s responsibility to do so. A larger City approach should be taken. One that requires all development to stay within the codes, plans and guidelines. In fact there are over 1000 new units being built or planned within a 5 mile radius of WC. New Millineium Senior Living – 250 units; Burton Station Senior Housing – 40 units; Overture Senior Apts – 150 apts; The Pearl – 260 apts; Marlin Bay – 230 apts; Marina Shores expansion – 60 apts; Reducing the number of units for the WC expansion to be equal to the current campus density won’t adversely impact the senior housing market. If the supply is there, the developers will come.
- There are zero affordable housing units in this expansion. The Senior Housing Design Guideline allows density increases above code only for HUD defined affordable senior housing. This type of allowance is common practice and shows up in California State laws as +20% for senior housing and even Alexandria Virginia as a +30% increase. The City’s Senior Housing Advisory Committee identified the lack of affordable HUD housing in this project and requested WC to supply documentation as to how they are meeting this requirement. None has been produced. Allowing increased density because a business plan needs it to maximize profit is not allowed.
- Maximizing tax collection is not a valid application review parameter. There is no requirement in the City codes, plans or guidelines that says tax revenue is more important than maintaining the character of a neighborhood. A smaller scale project allows the characteristics of the area to be maintained and also allow an increase in taxes over what is being collected now.
- Ignoring City codes, plans and guidelines will set precedent for future development in the Bayfront area. For the past 20 years, it has been the general opinion of the community that the development along Shore Drive has been too boxy and dense, but the residents have understood the overlay requirements and made sure projects didn’t violate them. The WC project you approved ignores the height restriction of 165ft that was adhered to for the 2nd WC building. The density of the 22 story tower site is 255% over the 24/units per acre code. The Senior Housing Guidelines require the site to be a minimum of 3 acres, yet it is only 2.56. The guidelines also require the project to have a mass and scale that doesn’t adversely impact the surrounding community’s character. Approving a project that ignores all of these requirements will provide the legal precedent for all future developers to ignore codes and ask for approval based on conditional use similar to this one.
The City’s lack of civic engagement for a project of this magnitude and impact is appalling. The Bayfront residents pride themselves on civil discourse and the ability to work with the City to find compromising solutions. The fact that we were never given the chance to discuss our concerns is not acceptable. All of you ran election campaigns that championed improved civic engagement for the citizens. We demand that you take the opportunity at your October 6th meeting and reconsider your vote of September 22nd. Denying the proposed WC development will allow the necessary City facilitated civic dialogue to take place needed to make an informed decision of this importance. A smaller less dense development would be an acceptable compromise that will keep future development of the Bayfront in accordance with codes, plans and guidelines and also allow WC residents to enjoy their new amenities and City Council to enjoy an increase in tax revenue. Keeping the approval of the high rise high density project will lead to a Bayfront that resembles Town Center and result in the loss of our neighborhood character which is the main reason we all love this area.
Sincerely,
Todd Solomon
Shore Drive Community Coalition President
“I will express my disapproval on Nov. 3.” And “Virginia Beach citizens will know exactly who to vote out of office on Nov 3.”
From Pilotonline.com Letters to the Editor:
Wrong move
For the first time in my 50 years of living in Virginia Beach, I attended a City Council meeting. The only topic was a vote on the massive $250 million expansion of Westminster-Canterbury on Shore Drive that includes a 22-story glass tower. Speakers for and against the expansion presented their views in a most informative manner. There is no doubt that the quality of life and care for hundreds of senior citizens is top-notch at Westminster-Canterbury. On the other hand, the quality of life in the Shore Drive area, which is primarily residential, will be forever changed for thousands.
Despite compelling evidence that current city zoning laws do not permit a structure greater than 165 feet in height, the council approved the Westminster-Canterbury expansion that is taller than 250 feet.
Some of the rationale for approval voiced by Mayor Bobby Dyer, Councilwoman Barbara Henley, and Councilman Guy Tower was that Virginia Beach needs medical care facilities for its senior citizens. I couldn’t agree more, but that care is in a different building, not in a 22-story, 250-foot independent living facility. This 22-story structure will only open the door for future developers to make Shore Drive “high-rise heaven.” I will express my disapproval on Nov. 3.
Richard Malla, Virginia Beach
Click here to see the results of City Council’s 5-2 Vote
on Westminster Canterbury
Why bother?
As a longtime resident of Lynnhaven Colony, I watched Tuesday’s Virginia Beach City Council meeting regarding the approval or disapproval of Westminster-Canterbury’s expansion with much interest. What I understood from Westminster proponents is: It’s a great place; they really care; Virginia Beach does not have enough senior housing; and that Beach boomers cannot wait to move there. What I heard from the opponents was that Westminster will destroy their view; shade their homes; and eliminate beach access that residents deserve, use and have grown to expect. It will incorporate a building that will be out of place, depreciate their home values, and that Westminster is actually unaffordable to most people.
What I heard from the council (except for Council members John Moss and Aaron Rouse, who I applaud for their sensibilities) was that the council meeting was a red herring, set up at the Virginia Beach Convention Center so as many people as possible could waste their time and voice their views; and, yes,
thanks for your comments and concerns, but we know better, don’t really care what you think or how this action might impact you,
and we’re going to pretend to think about it for say — five minutes — before announcing our foregone conclusion. Thank you very much. Virginia Beach citizens will know exactly who to vote out of office on Nov 3.
Kriste Brown Camsky, Virginia Beach
SDCC General Meeting Agenda – Monday September 28th at 7:30pm at OPVRS Hall
Click here for a printable version of the agenda 9.28.20 SDCC Agenda
This will be a socially distanced and mask wearing meeting. It’s been 7 months since our last in person meeting, thank you for your patience and we hope to all of your wonderful faces (at least eyes) again.
SDCC General Meeting Agenda
Monday September 28, 2020 from 7:30 to 9:00pm
Ocean Park Volunteer Rescue Squad Hall – 3769 East Stratford Rd
(parking in back, on side streets and across Shore Drive)
Special Presentation – None
Officer’s Reports: Secretary – Kathleen Damon; Treasurer’s Report –Tim Solanic;Vice President – Empsy Munden; President – Todd Solomon
Old Business-
Westminster-Canterbury (WC) High Rise and Memory Center Expansion – Update and discussion of City Council vote to approve on Tuesday Sept 22nd. What are possible next steps? Can anything be done have Council reconsider the vote? Can the Condo Owners and Residents take the City to court and have the decision changed?
Sand Replenishment of Bayfront Beaches – On Sept 22nd City Coastal Engineers briefed Council on a plan to use dredged material from the Thimble Shoals Channel Deepening project. This would delay the scheduled Ocean Park replenishment until November 2021, but will save the City money and allow for all Bayfront Beaches to be replenished at the same time.
Short Term Rental Overlay Districts Proposed for Ocean Park and Cape Story by the Sea – Councilman Louis Jones and Councilman Jim Wood have asked for an ordinance change to create STR overlay districts which will allow “By Right” use of residents for STRs as long as they meet the guidelines in the code. The goal is to reduce the number of STRs Council has to review via the Conditional Use Permit process.
Leasing of Lynnhaven Municipal Marina for Commercial Use – A Public Hearing for the potential lease of parking spaces at Lynnhaven Municipal Marina has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 6th, at 6:00 pm. The Terms of the potential lease include – 24 parking spaces at the north end of the Marina and 11 parking spaces located closest to the slips that could not be utilized by Chick’s until after 4:00 pm daily.
“Your Speed” Sign – A sign was installed in the median of Shore Drive just to the east of the intersection of Shore Drive and Kendall Street for cars coming out of the State Park heading west.
New Business –
Proposed Developments –
- Marina Shores Apartment Expansion – A 60 unit 5 story (65ft tall) building is being proposed along North Great Neck Rd. where the apartments tennis courts are currently located. This application is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission in November
- Marlin Bay Apartment Complex – 227 units 4 story buildings are being proposed at the intersection of Marlin Bay Drive and Shore Drive. The developer will present to the Bayfront Advisory Committee on Thursday Oct. 15th.
SDCC Donation to Ocean Shores Condo Legal Fee Fundraiser – We will have a discussion and vote to make a donation from the SDCC Legal Fees/Special Account to help support work in the opposition of WC high rise high density expansion.
PRECEDENT SETTING CITY COUNCIL MEETING, TESTIMONY & VOTE VIDEO ON WCCB IS LIVE
VOTE!
City Council Votes 5-2 to Support Westminster-Canterbury’s 22 Story High Rise High Density Application
The Shore Drive Community Coalition would like to thank Council Member John Moss and Council Member Aaron Rouse for their leadership and understanding of the community’s concerns. They made their decisions based on citizens input, adverse impact to neighborhoods and violations of existing codes, plans and guidelines. They didn’t let the allure of tax dollars and promises to solve the perceived problem of the approaching silver tsunami of retires influence their opinions. Please remember to thank them for their efforts.
The SDCC would like to thank all the members of the community for their emails, phone calls, letters and for speaking in opposition at hearings. Your dedication and efforts spent the past 10 months fighting this precedent setting project were truly heroic. As we see now, the lack of City civic engagement wasn’t by accident. With more civic engagement, it would have been harder for those that voted in favor to justify their support of a high rise high density project.
The following table shows how each Council Member voted on the application. This information may be helpful for future dealings with City Council.
Red – Voted in favor of the application (Dyer, Wooten, Berlucchi*, Henley, Tower**); Green – Voted against the application (Moss, Rouse); Yellow – Conflict of Interest (Wilson, Wood, Jones); White – Absent from Vote (Abbott)
*-Made motion to approve, **-2nd motion
“Under question is the 250-foot height of the proposed tower, which is taller than would typically be allowed for senior living housing. Planning Director Bobby Tajan has said that the council has the option to waive height requirements through the conditional use permit process.”
View article at Pilotonline.com:
“We don’t want a Town Center on Shore Drive,” Solomon said. “Once developers know they can get council to buckle, the developers will start lining up to build high rises on Shore Drive.”
Briefing about beach replenishment using sand dredged from CBBT channel
Briefing includes delay of sand for Ocean Park & no mention of using sand from Lynnhaven Boat Ramp stock pile which is located there to be used for emergency beach replenishment work according to City Staff in Public Works.
View briefing slides that will be presented to City Council tomorrow.
“SURE, WE COULD BUILD IT SMALLER and …”
WAVY TV COVERAGE OF WCCB PRECEDENT SETTING PROPOSAL
“This is planned for a residential community on Shore Drive …”
By the way, the City & WCCB have AGREED a 14 story building is the maximum height requirement since 1998.
PROPOSED SHORT TERM RENTAL REGULATION CHANGES City Council Briefing September 15, 2020 are controversial in the new proposed Overlay Districts in Bayfront
View Councilman Jones / Vice Mayor Wood proposal documents presented at City Manager Briefing September 15th[Note: VBGov.com broke the link again. Use Download links below for PDF.]
General overview of changes
■ Allow STRs, by-right, in certain specific locations of the City if they meet criteria
■ No Conditional Use Permits–STRs cannot operate elsewhere in the City
■ Regulations for Sandbridge are not changed
■ Regulations for other areas where STRs are permitted reflect current City Council imposed conditions on STRs with modification on number of rentals and required response by property owner or representative
Download Jones/Wood documents PDF of proposed changes.
View slides presented by Planning Director of STR proposed changes at City Manager Briefing.[Note: VBGov.com broke the link again. Use Download links below for PDF.]
Download PDF Planning Director slideshow.
A Call a Day Keeps the High Rise Away – Call City Council Campaign to Deny Proposed Westminster Canterbury 22 Story High Rise Development
Dear Shore Drive/Bayfront Residents,
It’s been 9 months since the community first learned of Westminster Canterbury’s plans to build the monstrous 22 story, 217 unit precedence setting high rise structure in the Bayfront neighborhood. Next week, on Tuesday September 22nd at 6:00pm, City Council will hold the final hearing and vote on this application. Mountains of information has been obtained by SDCC and the adjacent impacted residents. This data be reviewed here https://weloveshoredrive.com/category/wccb/
Suffice to say, it can all come down to the votes of 7 Council Members. With 3 of the 11 members recusing themselves due to Conflict of Interests, the remaining 8 would require a 5 to 3 vote in favor to approve the application. A 4 to 4 tie vote fails. So the goal to stop this proposed plan is to get 4 “NO” votes from the remaining 8 members. One member, Mr. John Moss, has gone on public record as voting “NO”, so that leaves 7 members and the need to gain 3 “NO” votes.
With 7 days remaining until the hearing, we are asking all Bayfront Residents to call a different Council Member each day and ask them to vote “NO” to this proposed application. Seven days and seven Council Members, pretty easy. The list of Council Members and their contact information is provided below.
It’s pretty simple, just ask the Council Members highlighted in YELLOW below (in person if they answer or on their voicemail) to vote “NO” to the proposed WC High Rise. Tell them the development doesn’t comply with any of the CIty’s codes, plans or guidelines and ask them to facilitate a civic discussion with the residents, developer and City Staff that can work towards a smaller and less dense compromise that isn’t precedent setting.
Here is the list of Council Members and their phone numbers. If you don’t feel comfortable calling them, please send them an email. You can send the entire City Council an email by using the following address, CityCouncil@vbgov.com
