Jump to content

Indigo Dunes


willy

Recommended Posts

The cost issue comes down to two items: 6-lane Shore Dr. and a new 6-lane Lesner Bridge. Lesner will need to be replaced at some point, but the City bought itself time with the resurfacing/rehab project back in 1999, I believe it was. If not for those two items, then yes, the project would be have positive net tax revenue. However, if this project makes Shore Drive rush hours a crawl not just congested and causes congestion in off-peak times, then it would be a break-even or negative net tax generator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply
well, all we can say is take a look at the area for yourself and you be the judge!

%5b/size%5d]'>%5b/size%5d]

(thanks to one of our dilligent members in the anti-dunes campaign here locally)

Recent facts are that the CHesBay Preservation Board heraing has been postponed 3x. It is not to be heard until December or January 2007 per the PLanning Dept. Also, the joint application was turned in AND then their rep. asked if they could have it back to make other changes to it. The joint app goes to 3 different boards for review: DEQ, VMRC aka Wetlands Board and Army Corp of Engineers. After that a public hearing with DEQ must be requested in order to have response. After all these, it will make its way before the council. We are counting on huge opposition and the momentum for that has certanly begun.

While some think it is a "wonderful" addition to the area, we do not, and most are vehemently opposed for reasons that cross all fronts. And yes, this project would violate every law that is designed to protect wetland areas without question. This is why the request for hardship variances and the effort of the developer to convince that this place is a man-made, wastedump of no value to the community or city.

It really comes down to this, you dont add more of the same problem to "fix" the existing problems (now compounded) that have gone unattended for over 7 years, AND then pretend that people are idiots and will belive that this is the "magical" answer...its like buying more on an already overextended credit card that you then promise that someone else, the city, is responsible to pay off for us later. Wrong.

Edit: Added url tags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding granfathering under CHesBayAct laws, that would be incorrect. There is no grandfatering with respect to vioaltion of RPA buffers, no net load increase in pollution levels from non-point sources, etc as specified therein. If so, the Act would be pointless, and in some localities it has been. It appears that in that case, it was simply ignored and without any siginificant oppostion, that is exactly what happens. That will not be the case here for this project, however. All eyes, at many levels beyond local, are watching now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding granfathering under CHesBayAct laws, that would be incorrect. There is no grandfatering with respect to vioaltion of RPA buffers, no net load increase in pollution levels from non-point sources, etc as specified therein. If so, the Act would be pointless, and in some localities it has been. It appears that in that case, it was simply ignored and without any siginificant oppostion, that is exactly what happens. That will not be the case here for this project, however. All eyes, at many levels beyond local, are watching now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've tried to make the point that Indigo Dunes is essentially a formal placeholder for development that fulfills market demand in the Shore Drive Corridor. If it is not built, equivalent density will probably occur in other nearby locations. That is what has happened in the North End of the Oceanfront over time, even though no large scale individual projects have been built there. If you look at the building permit activity over the last 15 years, you'll see that that is exactly what has happened. Therefore, I suggest that the justification to go to six lanes on Shore Drive will be present with or without Indigo Dunes.

That brings up the other concern about Chesapeake Bay preservation. Regardless of the literal interpretation of the CBPA, one has to consider whether shore lands in a highly urbanized area should always go undisturbed given all factors. I don't know the answer to that one, but I have examined aerial photos of the site over the past 60 years (they exist, believe it or not) and the shoreline has already been altered significantly.

Lastly, the City faces considerable pressures to avoid building new housing south of the Green Line, so it must absorb market demand where it can. Short of major population loss or infrastructure related moratoriums, that is a given.

I realize that none of this fully justifies going ahead with this project, but these are facts and considerations that should be brought up. Personally, I'm neutral on the project, although I like the design elements that I've seen. I used to live on Pleasure House Road a long time ago, and I guess what I dislike the most is the wall of privatization that has been built along the water. That's a strong criticism that I have for the whole region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the City lowered the density of the high-density parcels in the Shore Drive Corridor, is being very selective in approving new developments, and is preventing rezoning of single family homes to multi-family. My understanding for the studies done on the Shore Drive area was that city wants to prevent what has happened at the North End. And unlike the fractured North End Civic League (mainly because of seasonal rentals), Shore Drive's league is very strong. Considering all this and the fact that Shore Drive is more or less built-out with the exception of a couple sites around Bubba's, how would this densification come about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the City lowered the density of the high-density parcels in the Shore Drive Corridor, is being very selective in approving new developments, and is preventing rezoning of single family homes to multi-family. My understanding for the studies done on the Shore Drive area was that city wants to prevent what has happened at the North End. And unlike the fractured North End Civic League (mainly because of seasonal rentals), Shore Drive's league is very strong. Considering all this and the fact that Shore Drive is more or less built-out with the exception of a couple sites around Bubba's, how would this densification come about?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you live in the corridor, you are well aware of what is happening here. SInce everyone seems to have their own set of facts that they use to make decisions, here are a few that we are going by:

1) there is no build by right when there are laws/regulations, re-zoning limitations, and the responsible managment of a community area in terms of safety and access and preserving its character.

2) SHore Drive corridor is close to a 4:1 density load comapred to any other area in the city...that constitutes reasons for the majority of citizens saying enough. (dont intend this to mean that other folks do not have reason to request the city to consider their needs for managed growth, becasue they do.

3) Things are allowed becasue many are not willing to get out there and put up the fight. simple, esp when you hear someone say, oh its goig to happen anyway. thats why they end up where they are.

4) the East side of SHore Drive has seen the worst of it and it was not opposed. and that is sad.

so, choose a side, and if you are on ours, write to the city concil and tell them. (http://www.vbgov.com/city_hall/citycouncil/) and plan to be at the hearings for this thing. thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still neutral on this issue, but I believe that there is enough organized opposition to either stop it or significantly reduce it in scale. It would be nice if something could be worked out so that there would be lots of open space and public access on that site. That could happen in a number of ways. Good luck with the public hearings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

$25 million? That's it. VB should've used it's surplus on this and ended the fight before it really flares up. I'm really struck by the potential profits. It comes down to how much they can sell the units. 1,000 units at an average of $500,000 will gross $500 million. Minus construction costs and labor, I would they could still clear a couple hundred million. Boost the average selling price to $750,000, which wouldn't be difficult for waterfront property, and the Sandlers will approach $500 million in profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Wetlands board debates plan

Developers of the proposed Indigo Dunes have offered a plan that is slightly smaller, set farther back from the shoreline and offers more environmental concessions. Even so, the large housing development on wetlands near the Chesapeake Bay generated plenty of questions and concerns Monday at a meeting of the city's Wetlands Board.

The proposal by L.M. Sandler & Sons Inc. for condominiums, houses and townhouses on 69 acres off Shore Drive will face its first regulatory hurdle Feb. 19 at the Wetlands Board's next meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Board delays Indigo Dunes hearing

Frustrated members of the city Wetlands Board agreed Monday to hold off discussion on a large housing project off Shore Drive until May. The developer asked for the delay while it tries to answer a growing list of environmental concerns.

This is the second postponement for Indigo Dunes, a 1,063-home development proposed by L.M. Sandler & Sons Inc. The board also deferred a December hearing at the applicant's request.

Board member Nancy Lowe said the developers should have been ready to address some of the issues Monday.

In the past week, the city's Planning Department and the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences have outlined some concerns with 69-acre project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Wetlands Board rejects Indigo Dunes project

I think I might agree. Building such dense development on this small amount of land will further tax the overburdened roads and infrastructure. While I enjoy urban development sometimes it seems like each and every parcel of land in this city is being snatched up for building something. And since this is on the shoreline I think even a better reason to leave it as is - for now. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.