City Stops White Marsh Road Project
The owner doesn't have a permit to do work now, but said he'll apply to build a home.
By MATTHEW STURDEVANT | 247-7874
April 9, 2008 Daily Press
HAMPTON - Construction of a controversial gravel access road in the White Marsh area came to a stop when the city learned that a property owner had put in dirt fill that included pieces of brick and concrete.
The city issued a stop-work order in mid-March. The property owner, Sebastian Plucinski, then removed the dirt and replaced it with clean fill, according to Plucinski and Hampton Codes Compliance Director Steven Shapiro. But the city revoked the permit altogether last week after Plucinski removed some dead trees and debris while still under the stop-work order.
Removing the trees and debris was outside the scope of the land-disturbing permit that was issued to Plucinski so he could build an access road from the end of Riley's Way to the plot where he wants to build a home, Shapiro said.
Plucinski's plans stirred opposition last year from people who don't want to see any development in that area. His home would overlook White Marsh and the Chesapeake Bay beyond the marsh.
Last fall, hundreds of people had signs in their yards protesting the development. A core group of opponents still occasionally attends Hampton City Council meetings in hopes of preventing development.
Plucinski started work on the gravel road in February when he was issued the land-disturbing permit. An easement for the road cuts across two lawns at the end of Riley's Way and continues into the woods behind the two properties.
Plucinski said there's some debate about whether he is allowed to remove dead trees from his property, but the road is already finished. He said the only work left to do under the permit for the road was putting some fill near the home site. He said his next step is to get a land-disturbing permit and a building permit for the actual home.
Plucinski said he's waiting to hear how big the house can be before he submits building plans to the city. In January, the City Council approved an ordinance that expanded a buffer zone to the Chesapeake Bay, effectively reducing the size of any home Plucinski may build on his property.
Shapiro said Plucinski does not have a valid permit to do any work in the area now, and the Codes Compliance Department will do a complete review of any application Plucinski submits.
Who's To Blame For Lack of Bill to Protect Marsh?
Hampton, a legislator and the VMRC point fingers about legislation on White Marsh.
By MATTHEW STURDEVANT | 247-7874
Daily Press February 29, 2008
HAMPTON - An apparent failure to block development in the White Marsh area led to a shouting match at the end of a City Council meeting Wednesday and raised the question: What happened to a legislative effort to keep builders out?
The issue has become a political hot potato tossed among City Council members, state Del. Tom Gear, city staff and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.
In October, city staff and the City Council told dozens of people who wanted to block development at White Marsh that the city would pursue legislation. Specifically, Hampton would offer an outline of a bill to Gear, R-91st District, so he could draft it and introduce it during the 2008 session.
But no such bill was introduced this year.
Mayor Ross A. Kearney II and Vice Mayor Randy Gilliland blame Gear for not acting. Gear says he was waiting to hear back from city staff.
"Stop the finger-pointing, you are the only one who can write state code," Kearney wrote in an e-mail to Gear on Wednesday.
To this, Gear said, "I don't know what Ross is getting all whacked out about."
Last fall, city staff gave Gear an outline for a legislative change. Gear said the changes would "turn the state code upside down," and he recommended that staff consult with the VMRC to come up with a plan that would work better.
City Attorney Cynthia Hudson said Hampton submitted a proposal of the legislative change to the VMRC in November and did not receive comments back until early January — after the deadline to submit pre-filed bills.
"VMRC was not particularly supportive," Hudson wrote in an e-mail Wednesday.
The e-mail was sent to residents concerned about recent construction in the White Marsh area of Hampton, which is on the Chesapeake Bay south of Grandview and north of Salt Ponds.
However, VMRC officials say Hampton employees didn't contact the commission with suggestions for a bill until 9:06 a.m. Friday, Dec. 21, 2007. That was the time Hampton's director of intergovernmental affairs, Elizabeth Kersey, sent an e-mail to VMRC Commissioner Steven G. Bowman asking for feedback on the outline given to Gear, according to e-mails.
Bowman replied to Kersey on Thursday, Jan. 3, and attached the commission's analysis of Hampton's recommendation. VMRC spokesman John M.R. Bull pointed out that there were two weekends and four state holiday days between Dec. 21 and Jan. 3.
"We did not sit on our hands on this," Bull said. "We gave them a prompt and thorough review."
The VMRC's review found that Hampton's proposal would enable cities and counties to use a permitting system to regulate development on undeveloped barrier islands, provided the land fit criteria for the federal Coastal Barrier Resource System.
The change would have affected land in eight counties and three cities, including Poquoson, Hampton, Virginia Beach, Accomack, Northampton, Westmoreland, Northumberland, Lancaster, Middlesex, Mathews and Gloucester, according to the VMRC.
The VMRC's response to Kersey included an opinion that the legislation would be a state mandate on local governments, that it would add a layer of bureaucracy and would come with a permitting fee estimated at $750 to $1,000 for anyone who wanted to build.
The commission also found that the legislation would be a duplication of existing local and state regulations.
In Hudson's e-mail to residents, she explained what happened after the city heard back from the VMRC.
"Elizabeth Kersey then spoke to Delegate Gear about the legislation and understood that without a total revamping of the proposed legislation it would not be acceptable ... Under those circumstances, the city focus returned to the local legislative solution in the works."
The City Council expanded a buffer zone to the Chesapeake Bay, which limits development in White Marsh but doesn't prevent it.
When asked why he didn't introduce legislation on his own, Gear replied, "I don't want to put a bill in that the city doesn't want."
White Marsh Stirs Fresh Concerns
There's a dispute over a new committee to channel information about development.
By MATTHEW STURDEVANT | 247-7874
Daily Press March 4, 2008
HAMPTON - Bulldozing and tree-clearing near a marshy area next to the Chesapeake Bay continues to fuel disagreements as some residents take issue with a new city policy to channel all inquiries about White Marsh to a new committee. Additionally, more questions have been raised about proposed legislation to preserve the nearby White Marsh area.
At issue is a mix of marsh and forested uplands north of Salt Ponds and south of Grandview. Last fall, the possibility of development in that area drew opposition from hundreds, many of whom packed City Council chambers in protest.
More than a week ago, Sebastian Plucinski started to build a gravel road across two residents' yards to a wooded area considered part of White Marsh where he owns a plot and wants to build a new house. A smaller, vocal group of White Marsh activists showed up at Council chambers last week to try to stop any further development.
Some of the critics say the city failed to keep a promise to protect White Marsh by preventing development. City staff said they have done all they can do legally by expanding a buffer zone to the Chesapeake Bay to include undeveloped barrier islands. That expansion would restrict Plucinski's development plans, but not forbid them.
City Manager Jesse Wallace said he formed a three-person committee Friday to close a gap between the city and the White Marsh community.
"In order for it to be effective I need council to allow the staff to be the sole contact with the community of White Marsh," Wallace said in an e-mail Friday to council members.
Wallace said he also will ask those interested in White Marsh issues to nominate four or five people to whom the committee will pass on information.
Some don't like the plan.
"I think the public needs to know that the city manager is urging our elected officials to stop speaking with us about an issue that affects our property, our safety and our lives," Grandview resident Jennifer Amick wrote in an e-mail Sunday to the Daily Press.
Wallace said people certainly may talk to elected officials whenever they like, but most questions about White Marsh are administrative matters best answered by city staff.
Along with the debate about the new committee is a dispute about what happened to a legislative effort to block development at White Marsh.
City staff asked the Virginia Marine Resources Commission for feedback on plans to draft a bill which would be introduced by state Del. Tom Gear, R-Hampton. The bill wasn't introduced. City staff say they were waiting for a response from the VMRC. VMRC officials say they didn't hear from the city until late December and the commission's response was prompt. City staff have said they contacted VMRC in the fall of 2007 but VMRC officials did not respond until Jan. 3, after a December due date to pre-file bills for consideration by the state legislature.
VMRC officials contend they did not receive a written proposal for a bill until a Dec. 21 e-mail from Hampton's Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Elizabeth Kersey.
The city and VMRC had a conference call in September, and Kersey has an e-mail showing she sent an outline of a bill to VMRC Commissioner Steven G. Bowman as an attachment on Oct. 24, 2007. In the e-mail, she said: "Please find attached the proposed draft legislation related to wetlands permitting for those localities that are part of the Coastal Barrier Resource System."
VMRC spokesman John M.R. Bull said Bowman received an e-mail referencing an attachment, but there was no attachment included.
Kersey also said she called the VMRC in November to inquire about the draft outline. Bull said the VMRC couldn't confirm the call.
Bull said VMRC maintains three points:
• Officials at the commission don't believe they were tardy in their analysis of Hampton's legislative plan
• They gave a professional analysis as a courtesy, but determined that the VMRC did not have a direct stake in the proposal.
• It was not too late to submit a bill after the VMRC's response on Jan. 3, in response to the Dec. 21 e-mail.
"Lawmakers had until at least Jan. 18 to offer bills for consideration..." Bull said in an e-mail.