From campaign website: www.bobbydyerformayor.com: "The People's Mayor" in the "City of YES!" and Mayor Bobby Dyer Facebook posts: I ran on a platform of accelerating these projects to the maximum extent possible. We can't do anything about what was or wasn't done in years past, but going forward we can redouble our efforts to protect homeowners’ investment in their neighborhoods... YOU know your own neighborhoods better than anyone. January 2019. 

Regarding the Referendum: "Its an investment. It's an investment in our future. It's an investment in our quality of life." "Virginia Beach residents understand the importance of taking more aggressive measures now to protect our communities from the effects of recurrent flooding."

Voted not to implement the Resolution: "To have an outside set of eyes come in and take a look at things....to clarify things...improve things." "The thing is...the commitments will eventually be fulfilled...I am convinced that what we are doing will definitely live up to the intent of what we did when we passed the referendum....We made a commitment. We intend to honor that commitment....Rest assured, we did not violate our word. The ordinance is in effect. What we are doing right now is going through a process to make sure everyone is on the same page....We are going to aggressively address flooding...We are going to look at infill development thats going to be happening....redevelopment thats gonna be happening...you know we're gonna have to reinvent ourself going forward...   We are gonna do the right thing for the right reason for the public and address stormwater."

January 25, 2023 City Council Retreat: Mayor Dyer (at minute 24:30) regarding storm water regulation promises the Council made to VB citizens and are now actively retracting..."we passed the legislation, you know, with all good intentions, but that was before we did the bond referendum and sometimes, when we pass things, the law of unintended consequences comes forward. And one of the criticisms we get, is that we cater to developers, but....(developers) purchase a bunch of stuff." And then this is "not a change but a course correction."

January 2024 In a Hampton Roads Realtor Association Forum Mayor Dyer called the cities stormwater standards "draconian" and that we had to make room for more development.  January 2024

In an interview with Channel 10 news, Mayor Dyer said the city's stormwater standards are more restrictive than the states and we have to find a way to loosen them up to make way for more development.  February 2024. (in the case of Wycliffe, the city staff has approved a 10' vegetative buffer around the lake. The state of Virginia's MINIMUM vegetative buffer is 25'.  Despite being asked, the city planners have provided no reason why they would lessen the standards for this development *by more than half* the states MINIMUM buffer. The land above the lake will b filled with 5 homes, driveways, and a private road).

 Will he vote against the Application to return this land to housing and to fill in Lake Conrad on April 16th?

On April 3, 2024 Dyer said during the Council Formal session: "We drive around and we see all over the city these signs about building in wetlands. And it is a concern that a lot of folks have out there. And you know theres some you know some misunderstandings misrepresentations so at the Agenda meeting I brought up the possibility of maybe us bringing forward an initiative by Council to um you know maybe discourage the use of uh building in wetlands. So once again I would like at least put it on the um Agenda for a discussion. But I think a lot of people in the city you know would might appreciate that."

Candidate Profile WAVY News:  "By far, flooding is our biggest infrastructure need, and we've committed record funding in the budget to address these issues. Sea level rise is a reality for coastal cities like ours, and we must make the investments to keep our neighborhoods free from recurrent flooding."

Public remarks regarding the Dewberry Report: Flooding (sic) is "probably the biggest threat that faces our city. We really need to take this seriously. These are huge, huge numbers. It's very frightening."

Referendum:

Resolution:  "remember where we were last September in trying to get the confidence of the public that if they approve this amount of money for the bond referendum, we weren't just going to turn around and approve a bunch of zoning that was then going to cause all of those improvements to not be adequate... it's important that we have the trust of the public and now if we say we didn't mean that...that's not good...I am not going back on my commitment to the public."

January 25, 2023 Council Winter Retreat: Henley recognized the voters expect that they KEEP THEIR PROMISES!!! min 56:03 "we will be pumping those lakes out forever" (in Ashville Park).

January 2024 City Council Winter Retreat, Henley said they aren't lessening the standards at all, they just need to review them again. 

Candidate Profile WAVY NEWS: Flooding (sic) "sometimes reprsents separation of families, impacts on work, and family life. It's just tremendously devastating to our community, and I think that the human impact is what led to an overwhelming amount of support of voters for the bond referendum."

Candidate Page: As a real estate and business attorney and managing partner of Town Center Office suites, Schulman ran on a development and growth platform, which intersects interestingly with his passion for coastal resiliency, flooding, and environmental concerns. After serving as Chairman of the Wetlands Board and as board member of Lynnhaven River Now, Schulman has the experience and knowledge to lead Virginia Beach to grow responsibly, to recognize incompatibilities between new development/redevelopment and the regulations needed to protect our environment. 

In addition Schulman recognizes the importance of forest conservation. Red Bridge currently has 140 mature trees, which is about 30% of what was there prior to the city removing about 75 trees just before the developer's application was produced.  From Schulman's candidate page: "I'm passionate about saving our trees which are critical to air and water quality and combatting coastal erosion.They also reduce flooding by absorbing water from the ground and returning it to the air through evapotranspiration." 

Retreat Priorities: "For me, priority number one is land use and strategic growth...we've got some inherent tensions between competing priorities, those are economic growth and redevelopment on one hand and the environment on the other.  We have redevelopment and infill development needs that bump into neighborhoods from time to time. We have pressures on the southside of our city where we should rightfully maintain an aversion to additional residential development but at the same time we go to the northern part ofour city we have environmental issues, we have densely populated areas like the Shore Drive corridor, and we have some push back in terms of density and multi-family which I really feel lends itself to reexamining putting our faith, effort, and energy into our stategic growth areas. Those are areas of our city that are infrastructure rich close to transportation corridors, employment centers, they do not abut neighborhoods,  they are opportunities for us for mixed affordability and workforce housing and also places for public art and other beautification initiatives. Our zoning ordinance is a bit of an inhibitor, it was written in the 70s and contemplated a city that was wide-open for greenfield development. I would be supportive of taking a look at our zoning ordinance and updating it to be more redevelopment and infill development oriented along with community input and support so that we can give a little more comfort to neighborhoods who are concerned about encroaching urban areas but at the same time give a little more certainty to the business community so they can go out and do what they need to do." A NAY vote will signal the citizens of Virginia Beach that Schulman respects the community input when objecting to filling in part of the natural wetlands in their neighborhood to build more houses, which are completely inconsistent with the mid-century subdivision.

Accessibility is also a priority of Schulman, mainly with beaches and waterways being more accessible. The neighborhood would like Red Bridge to be preserved for open space and eventually to become a park for the neighborhood, which would emphasis accessibility for special needs. Historically, this location was vital to the special needs children of Virginia Beach! A NAY vote on this application will prove that Schulman is dedicated to this priority.

Another main priority of Schulmans is connected neighborhoods and revitalization:"There was a lot of really great work done in District 3 in Bow Creek, making internally connected neighborhoods, complete streets, and connecting neighborhoods to adjacent retail. Trails, parks, outdoors..." it continues. The application to return this property to housing will eliminate a connection between two streets in Great Neck Estates which has been used by the neighborhood to deliver newsletters and socialize as well as to patronize nearby businesses for 7 DECADES. If connecting neighborhoods is a priority of Schulman's, you should see him vote NAY on this application that will terminate a neighborhood connection permanently.

January 2023 Winter Retreat: 

Schulman agreed that he has been approached by developers as well and believes there is room for adjusting the regulations in the strategic growth areas. He hopes the task force includes the environmental groups.

In Jan 2023, Schulman was put on a committee by the Mayor to explore city initiatives.  Over the course of last year, tHe PISC committee determined the stormwater regulations needed to be studied for another 6 months while they examine input by stakeholders. Schulman proposed further studying the stormwater regulations to Council in February 2024. 

Schulman has expressed being in favor of the split zoning of the Wycliffe property per the developers wishes but has not yet seen the new plan.

Retreat Priorities:  

Subsequent interview:   The Comp Plan review-"When it comes to absorbing some of these calls to protect our environment and prevent flooding, there's a seat at the table for the developers to absorb some of those costs. I know that there are council members that don't believe that everyone understood the language, that there was some confusion and lack of clarity around what they were really voting on but I think ultimately the people spoke and we need to do our best to keep our word." Specific to Wycliffe Church "So as I've stated, I haven't taken a position but have stated I don't think it's wise to fill in ponds or waterways to build anything that someone is going to reside in, but ultimately we have to look at the application and I have consulted with our city attorney I think we have to be carefully especially with private land use and ownership rights and so I think the Planning commission took a position, its coming before us but I am an advocate for 1) community engagement--the people have spoken, it's clear this is important to that neighborhood and ultimately we have to make a decision coming up here in a few weeks if we think this is wise in terms of the change in the potential use especially when we are looking at flooding in that referendum. But utlimatately i havent taken a yay or nay position but I'm very supportive of what I've heard so far from the community and I think we have a developer that has acknowledged the people are concerned and my hope is that we will be able to come together and find a solution that pleases everyone, which doesn't happen often."

January 25, 2023 Winter Retreat: Taylor recognized that affordable housing is not what these developers are pursuing (minute 42:26) and that developers have been perfectly clear that they don't expect a middle ground, they expect a reversal to the state regulations (minute 45:00)

At the Winter Retreat in 2024, Taylor spelled out to the Council and citizens his frustration with the continual delays implementing these regulations. His thorough outline of the seemingly intentional delays can be found on our media page. Taylor has expressed his unequivocal opposition to the redesign plan to the developer and to the community. He is running for Mayor on a platform of leadership and transparency and has certainly proven his abilities to listen to constituents and measure all aspects of city issues and concerns.

Per Benjamin Green, legislative aide to Councilman Worth Remick 

"I appreciate you reaching out and sharing comments from neighbors and the petition that has been circulating. Worth STRONGLY opposes any new building on this site and will be surprised if it gets any traction. If they need any CUPs, variances or other permits requiring Council or other committees, he will take the lead to deny.

From Worth directly, "I agree 1000% no more building on properties like this, with all of the existing flooding in that area."

Former At-Large Councilman Moss has repeatedly provided a platform on his podcast to discuss this citywide concern. He has provided valuable advice and perspective from being on City Council and also as the author of the stormwater resolution. Moss said every word of the resolution was carefully used so that citizens would be the beneficiaries of the Flood Prevention Bond Referendum and Flood Protection Program. He sent a letter on our behalf to the current city council, city manager, and city attorney on March 3, 2024, which reads as follows: 

Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

The fact that there is a necessity to petition for a decision that each of you should have already expressed your predisposition to sustain the existing conditional religious use permit on the parcel is disappointing.   That the updated submission is a new proposal that can only be judged as spot zoning is an example of a broken City land use review process that earlier brought us the Green LIne breaching Silo at Southern Pines decision. 

Any objective analysis, meaning free of special interest influences, by council members would have denied the initial request.  Instead, your decision to remand the request to the Planning Commission gave the developer another opportunity to deliver an even more flawed project.  The right decision the first time was denial and the right decision now is denial.

Not only has the land use reasoning for approving the conditional use permit voluntarily requested by the land owner approved by the City Council in 1966 not been invalidated, but the current proposal has all the characteristics of spot rezoning.

The initial submission to you lifted the conditional use permit and enabled underlying residential zoning for housing and filling in the lake.  Rather than denying the initial request and sustaining the validity of the 1966 City Council decision - the right land use decision - a second bite at the apple was granted to the developer.  

The City Council allowed the developer to submit an entirely new proposal without having to wait a year since by referring it back to the Planning Commission they circumvented officially denying the initial developer request.  Whether intended or not, the message you sent is that a majority of you were looking to say yes to the developer and saying no preserving the public's equity/interest ceded by the landowner in the 1966 City Council decision.   You now have the opportunity by your vote to deny the property owner's and developer's request to restore a modicum of public trust.

The developer came back with a de facto spot zoning request which is a more intense development proposal that lifts the conditional use permit and rezones the parcel into an R-10 parcel and an O-1 parcel,  each parcel constituting a conditional rezoning request.

Over 8,000 Beach voters and rising have signed an online petition and many have donated money as well to share their collective instruction to you to sustain the 1966 land use decision that granted the conditional use permit that is being requested to be removed.  The removal of this enables the follow-on rezoning requests to be legally possible.  The landowner - the church - requested a conditional use permit for religious use on the two parcels in 1966.  One parcel is where the church building is located and will continue to operate and the second parcel is subject to the now rezoning request.  

The City Council in granting the Church’s request enabled the landowner to gain a non-entitled use -property tax exemption religious use - at a loss of public tax revenues in consideration of the public benefits gained by the land use decision and upon which the future community stakeholders could rely on.

The church as the landowner is requesting based on a contractual obligation created by a contingent purchase contract to have the religious use conditional use permit be lifted on one parcel while retaining the religious use permit on the parcel on which the physical church resides.

While the City Council has the legal authority to grant what constitutes a unilateral modification of its 1966 voluntary agreement at the expense of vacating the public benefits the Church ceded to gain the public gain its right to exist, the City Council of today has a moral and civic obligation to honor the land use decision of 1966 and preserve the public benefits the landowner ceded in return for enabling the church’s construction and operation.  The public’s equity in the 1966 decision must be sustained.  The only principled and responsible objective analysis of the Developer’s on behalf of the property owner is denial.

What I have shared with each of you, each of you already knows.  The only question is will you cast your vote to preserve the public equity ceded voluntarily by the landowner in 1966 to gain the property owner a non-legally entitled use of the parcels for a church?  The answer should be in favor of preserving the public's equity. 

How you cast your vote will be most instructional to voters.

A vote to deny is the only logical vote if the public’s interest vested in the 1966 decision is preserved and honored.

For the record, this is not my first written submission to you on this subject.

Sincerely,

John Moss