Jump to content

Bay Tower (Under Construction)


vdogg

Recommended Posts


58 minutes ago, vdogg said:

Westminster resident just hit the opposition over the head with the fact that they were there for 40 years and the opposition just showed up in the neighborhood recently.

Meanwhile, a quick Google tells me that Ocean Shores was built in 2001. I’ve done photography for Cape Henry Tower, which is at the foot of the Lesner Bridge. I know that opened in the mid-70s. These people are crazy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Planning approved by a vote of 5-2. One commissioner was against it because of the height of the building, the other was against it because her grandparents couldn't afford to live there (:huh:).  It was quite a heated meeting though, with one of the commissioners admonishing the crowd because of their behavior. I have a feeling this one's going to be a fight at City Council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Project goes before council for a public hearing August 4th. We'll see how it goes. The number of participants is limited due to Covid but I still expect folks to show up in force.

https://weloveshoredrive.com/2020/07/09/city-council-hearing-for-proposed-westminster-canterbury-22-story-iconic-landmark-set-for-tuesday-aug-4th/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Virginia Beach will never reach its full potential as a resort city as long as naysayers (who I'm guessing are in the minority) keep pulling stuff like this. The ironic thing is, these people moved to Shore Drive well after the developments began.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, BFG said:

Virginia Beach will never reach its full potential as a resort city as long as naysayers (who I'm guessing are in the minority) keep pulling stuff like this. The ironic thing is, these people moved to Shore Drive well after the developments began.

 

You assume they actually live on Shore Drive. I'm sure many are there to complain just to complain. Many are just anti-development.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Virginia City said:

 

You assume they actually live on Shore Drive. I'm sure many are there to complain just to complain. Many are just anti-development.

Good point. I guess I’m going by what I saw from a couple months ago. But yeah, it’s just VB being VB in general. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

https://weloveshoredrive.com/2020/08/06/westminster-canterbury-expansion-update-city-council-member-status/

This is going to be a close one. The recusals HURT, as all of them would generally be in favor of such a project. Abbott always votes the same way Moss does so that's 2 automatic no's. I think it's 50/50 whether this goes through. Vote has been rescheduled to the 25th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF everyone votes the way they normally do I have the vote coming down to 5-3 in favor. No idea what happens in the case of a tie.

A tie vote would be considered a denial, but the motion can be reconsidered if petitioned within 30 days. Bottom line, they need 5 votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Difficult to read the tea leaves here. Is this actually in the Bayside or Lynnhaven district?  I’m going to say Lynnhaven  because I think since it’s on the East Side the bridge, it’s Lynnhaven.

Anyway, had Louis Jones (Bayside)  not taken himself out of the game, he could’ve very well voted “no.” He’s been voting against every single short term rental application, along with John moss and Barbara Henley. Despite the fact that they made the rules and most people are abiding by them, they’re still denying them because they say they’re trying to “preserve the neighborhoods and their character.” Sound familiar here? Yes.  Anyway, On short term rentals they basically caved to political pressure, and so their original votes on establishing these overlays and such have been rendered meaningless. Yes, I think Louis would have been negative on this.

Rosemary would’ve definitely voted “yes.”
Wood would’ve prolly voted “yes.”

———-//////—————//////—————

Now for the ones who are actually voting:

I’ll put Barbara as a “no. “ she will want to remain consistent with the neighborhood character preservation thing.

Jessica  is a little unpredictable, although she does tend to mirror John Moss.  I know she’s very proud of her community-based outreach, town halls & her online presence via social media etc., so I’m sure she’s the one who has probably met with these people. Unless it was Louis or Jim. So maybe she will be meeting with them Soon.

I am going to mark Jessica down as a “no. “ She’s fairly anti-developer, as well. She’s also easily impressed by a throng of naysayers Lol. She seems to lick her finger and put it in the air on every issue. She recently lost her bid to put the voting system change referendum on the ballot. She’s a bit of a populist, even if she thinks that means (again) assessing the wind direction or taking a poll on everything and not leading, per se . 

Bobby votes “yes.”

I think Aaron Rouse is a “yes,” but he definitely has future political aspirations, as he was running for Mayor at one point this year, so he might be iffy.....

Sabrina Wooten, I’m not sure how to read her. How did you have her voting, VDOGG? I’ll say she votes  “yes. “

So..,thusfar among eligible voting members, that is 3 “no’s” and 3 “yesses” with 3  abstentions.

Now onto Guy. I say he’s a  definite “yes.” Too many connections with people who would want to move there.  He and Rosemary are pretty much one in the same. Their connections and everything are similar, and she also lives at the north end.

Finally, we have Mr. Berlucci. He’s also quite difficult to read sometimes. He’s a community organizer type, civil rights commissioner or something like that. He seems left of center politically, that is probably irrelevant here. I’m just now sure where he goes. Hmmmm....

I think this thing is going to go 4-4. Which would mean a denial. The  applicant would have to come back quickly. Or even 3 to 5 against. I think it’s less likely it’s 5 to 3 in favor. However that’s also possible of course.

UPDATE—-I just read the update from VDOGG about the masonry wall and the setback. Maybe that was the final compromise to get someone to vote “yes.” So maybe it was going to go 4-4, and now it’s 5-3 in favor. Haha I don’t know. This is interesting!

Edited by baobabs727
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have Dyer, Berlucci, Guy, Wooten, and Rouse all as Yesses judging from past history and recent comments. In Berlucci's case, he took Moss to task over his recent comments about the new city manager and the process for these recent controversial projects. He doesn't like him. He'll be on whatever side Moss isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, vdogg said:

I have Dyer, Berlucci, Guy, Wooten, and Rouse all as Yesses judging from past history and recent comments. In Berlucci's case, he took Moss to task over his recent comments about the new city manager and the process for these recent controversial projects. He doesn't like him. He'll be on whatever side Moss isn't.

Oh wow, I’m gonna have to get caught up on my YouTube—Virginia Beach city channel! I usually watch every hearing, but I’ve been missing out lately. I want to see Berlucci to  him to task. I sent an email to Moss last night. He wrote me back. I haven’t read it yet. I want to be in a relaxed state before I do so ha ha

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
17 hours ago, vdogg said:

This item has been deferred to September 22nd due to request from applicant.

19BE8E2E-F5D4-43CE-A200-F8E9E1028178.png

John Moss writes to me (in response to my email telling him why he was wrong):

 

“It is possible that due to proposed realignments of public easements that this application by City Charter may require nine votes.  If that proves to be true the issue may be moot due to the number of council members who say they have to abstain.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, baobabs727 said:

John Moss writes to me (in response to my email telling him why he was wrong):

 

“It is possible that due to proposed realignments of public easements that this application by City Charter may require nine votes.  If that proves to be true the issue may be moot due to the number of council members who say they have to abstain.”

I take anything Moss says with a grain of salt. I would presume if this were the case that they simply wouldn’t schedule a meeting at all because, as he says, the issue would be moot. I also fail to see how there wouldn’t be some workaround to this scenario, as it unfairly denies the applicant a public hearing due to no fault of their own. I foresee a very quick court challenge if this occurs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2020 at 12:45 PM, vdogg said:

I take anything Moss says with a grain of salt. I would presume if this were the case that they simply wouldn’t schedule a meeting at all because, as he says, the issue would be moot. I also fail to see how there wouldn’t be some workaround to this scenario, as it unfairly denies the applicant a public hearing due to no fault of their own. I foresee a very quick court challenge if this occurs.

 

On 8/25/2020 at 12:51 PM, vdogg said:

Additionally, it is far out enough to redesign the project as to not require realignment of said easements. Many things may sink the project, but this won’t be the one.

This

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • vdogg changed the title to Bay Tower (Under Construction)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.