“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.

Visit GoFundMe FUNDRAISING page.

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. 

“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.

SDCC asks City Council to Reconsider Vote on Westminster Canterbury High Rise High Density Development

“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