Letters Shared With City Council

I am opposed to the Wycliffe/Bishard development application in its entirety.  This neighborhood is part of the Suburban Areas of Virginia Beach, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The property should remain for religious use and the lake protected as a stormwater drainage site through a city impoundment. The city committed to enhance or maintain existing neighborhoods in the Suburban Areas. The plan as presented degrades the community and devalues the properties of an established neighborhood in order to serve the best interests of two private entities. The Virginia Beach Zoning code is intended to promote and protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the city. It also specifically should protect and improve the quality of the waters. This plan does not encourage the best purpose of this land and lake and threatens all Suburban Areas throughout Virginia Beach by violating the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. There is demand for church land in northern Virginia Beach and not office or housing that does not fulfill the affordability needs of the city. Therefore this appliation should be denied in full.

Respectfully, Your Name, Your District number

April 15, 2024 

“To: Citycouncil@vbgov.com

Subject: Wycliff Church/Bischard

I understand there is a ground-swell of public support AGAINST this agenda item and I am included.  This has been a mess ever since the beginning.  The thought of our city council agreeing to a plan that has had so much push-back, change, and remaining undisclosed information (to the public and planning department) is preposterous! 

We passed a referendum in 2021 that should have quieted this proposal from the beginning.  I live in District 9 and we are in the throws of storm water drainage "correction" because of a long past of deferred and/or poor drainage maintenance practices.  Remember the Windsong Apartments  debacle?  We appeared in large numbers with the support of MANY surrounding civic leagues (I believe it was 16) only to be told we made one of the strongest arguments that you had ever heard . . . and then we got voted down 7-3!  This cannot continue throughout our city.  This builder should not be allowed to affect the stormwater drainage on that site AT ALL!   When I hear excuses like "we're running out of property!" it makes my blood boil.  At some point when citizens realize that our "leaders" do not care about us taxpayers and start to leave this area because of years of neglect and chaos, you'll have more property!!! . . .  likely in the form of abandoned neighborhoods!  We older citizens who can't stand the exorbitant taxes for the quality of life we're getting are fed up! 

I urge you to consider your actions very carefully on this issue.  Election time is right around the corner.  We will not forget!

Sincerely,

Gail H Gowin District 9

April 14, 2024

As a longtie resident of Virginia Beach and constituent, I am strongly urging you to DEFER voting on the newest Lake Conrad plan until actual written plans are delivered, and neighborhoods as well as the planning commission can appropriately review.  

This new plan may actually be workable. However, let the plan stand on its merits and be reviewed to give it legitimacy.

Todd Parker, District 9

April 13, 2024

Dear Chris Taylor,

I respectfully request your vote to defer a final decision on the revised plan presented Thursday regarding building in the Lake Conrad wetland area. I oppose further building in that neighborhood.

David  Christenson, District 8

Dear Mayor and Virginia Beach City Council members,

I am planning to attend the Tuesday night City Council meeting in support of the Great Neck Estates neighborhood opposing the developer who wants to purchase and develop the parcel of land from Wycliffe. I was originally opposed to this plan when the proposal included filling in the lake. It seemed impossible that would even be considered a viable plan, but it unbelievably was. Then when they changed the plan to request rezoning of part of the parcel to commercial use, with the entrance to and from that parcel going through an established neighborhood, I was also opposed to that.  Now we understand that some new changes have been submitted, again at the 11th hour with no assessment of the impacts of whatever these new plans are. Is this even allowed to be voted on without flooding, environmental, traffic, community and other impacts to be assessed?

A topic that has been dismissed and not heavily discussed is what is the potential flood risk of removing mature trees and building and I assume filling in the downward slope toward the lake to level the ground for the foundation of the homes. We have been told there will not be any flooding impact, but what if that assessment is incorrect? Is it possible to hold the developer liable to remedy any “unexpected” flooding issues they create with this development? We already have so many flooding issues in our city, I hope you will be mindful to not add to the growing flood concerns across the city,

I beg you to DEFER this vote until the changes to the plans are made public and further studies are done with the impacts of this new plan, whatever it may be, for the development.

If they revert back to the commercial rezoning plan, I beg you to vote NO to that.

The seeming disregard for this community in favor of the developer is troubling and has many of us concerned about what could happen in our neighborhoods if we are not paying close attention as the people of GNE are. I hope your decisions will be based on how this benefits our community and city and not with how it benefits a developer.  Please.

Thank you so much for your time and attention.

Respectfully,

Kathie McGrattan District 6

Linkhorn Cove

Mr. Taylor,

I urge you to defer on the Lake Conrad project.  The revised plan has not been vetted by the planning committee and has not been publicized enough so that we, the taxpayers can weigh in on the specifics.  This seems to be a back handed way for the developer to get approval and then change what they are doing.

Although I understand the need for more housing in Virginia Beach, we must also use prudence in managing our natural resources as well as our stormwater drainage system so that all can enjoy the beauty of our area.  

Too many projects have been slammed through approval to the dismay of their neighbors and we are still waiting for the promised changes to rules related to management of wetlands.

Please vote to defer this project until the specific issues can be resolved.

Thank-you,

Julie Mitchem

As a taxpayer and resident of Virginia Beach the projects/developments that this council has been approving certainly does not have the best interest of the  community.  What was approved for the Windsong development is a disgrace and absolutely ruined the charm of Chick’s Beach.  Once this project is  completed, Pleasure House Rd. will need to be four lanes to accommodate traffic. I will never be able to ride on bike to the beach again without taking my life in my hands.  So Sad! We all live in Virginia Beach because of the small town charm that it use to offer. You’re slowly destroying our appeal with over development, and ugly at that.

Please, please deny this request.  I guess the first step would be to defer this newest plan and  have it submitted through the proper channels for review.

We still have a chance to make this right and not continue to destroy wetlands, trees and  command green space that we all enjoy.

Appreciate your consideration, sincerely

Debbie Smith District 9

April 8, 2024

Dear City Council Members,

Lakeview Shores Civic League strongly opposes Wycliffe Presbyterian Church's attempt to spot zone and rezone into a business district as recently presented to Planning Council.

Sincerely,

Kim Mayo Vice President District 9

Matt Umlauf President

Christina Thomas Tarjan, Treasurer

Karl Schellenberg, Secretary

 Dear Mayor Dyer and Virginia Beach City Council Members,

I’m writing to request a vote to deny the items on the agenda on April 16, 2024

Deny the ZONING request due the the harm it will cause to our community.

Spot Zoning goes against the comprehensive plan.

Traffic congestion is already a problem for residents trying to drive out of the neighborhood.

We can’t safely turn left onto Great Neck Road from our main entrance on Millwood as it is.

There have been multiple accidents at Harbor Lane and Millwood Road / N.  Great Neck Road.

Great Next Estates has two ways of entering the neighborhood from Great Neck. One from Millwood and the other is from Great Neck Circle. The amount of accidents at the Great Neck Circle entrance is directly across from the Reserve.

Julia Cherry, GNE Resident, District 8

April 3, 2024

Honorable Mayor Dyer and City Council Members,

Our community is asking that you sustain the existing CUP on the Wycliffe excess property. Removing the Religious Use Permit as proposed would be harmful to our community, city, and the lake we seek to protect for coastal resilience. The 1966 City Council agreed to the CUP because of the many benefits to the community. The removal now would result in public detriment in multiple ways that you have already heard. Further, several churches in the area are seeking a home, and 3 acre lots are non-existent in northern Virginia Beach. Reducing the boundaries will eliminate the existing highest and best use.

Four churches have indicated an interest in finding a permanent home in northern Virginia Beach.

1. The Church of the Redeemer has had professional renderings drawn to modernize the A-frame building and utilize the lake and playground to welcome the community. The pastor called me and shared their strong interest and appreciation for the setting.

2. Wycliffe Trustee Jim Haynie told me that the church would be willing to have another church in that space. If the rezoning plan is granted, the lot will be too small to fulfill the 3 acre minimum size.

3. Ascent Church, and two other churches who wish to remain anonymous, have been desperately seeking a home nearby.

4. When Grace Bible Church wanted to expand in northern Virginia Beach, they ended up in Norfolk instead and lost members.

In 1966, the community welcomed the Religious Use permit and have enjoyed decades as good neighbors and members of Wycliffe Church.

1. The lake has served as an anchor as well as a protection for the community from flooding.

2. The bridge connects two streets in our neighborhood (Millwood and Poplar Point) and has been a path for residents to safely walk and ride bikes to church and businesses such as Lynnhaven Dive Center, Sunrise Café, and the service station.

3. The prohibition of parking on the private driveway in the prosed plan will force those new residents to park on Millwood Road and introduces a significant safety concern for pedestrians going to businesses that does not currently exist.

Public Works said the water channel is necessary and have recently performed over $140,000 in improvements including installation of a rip rap bulkhead.

1. 35,500 cubic feet of water are held in the lake, which never runs dry.

2. It is not a puddle or a drainage ditch as some have described and is recognized by the state as non-tidal wetlands.

3. Many of you stated since November’s hearing that the lake would be protected, but no one has shared with us by what means.

4. The minute the CUP is removed, the developer has the right to fill in Lake Conrad 2 (validated by the regulatory agencies in 2023). It might not be this year or next, but there is no requirement to keep the lake in its present or better condition. In fact, Public Works removed the water quality feature from the CIP that they had committed to us in 2018.

We do not and have never wanted to keep Wycliffe from selling an asset that they no longer want. We objected to the removal of the CUP because it meant the destruction of the lake, the elimination of open space use for the community that had been encouraged for decades, and the termination of our access to part of our neighborhood. We object to the new design proposal because in introduces harm to our community on multiple levels. This is all unnecessary when there are churches who seek a home but were never approached.

You are faced with the knowledge that a church wants to sell its land and a neighborhood who wants protection from the harm of upzoning. Sustaining the CUP and allowing the church to sell to another church is the right answer and it’s the legal answer. This is the win-win that the public wants to hear, and I think it is the story that you would want to tell. To us, there is no benefit to removing the CUP (except to two private entities alone). Once it is gone, the lake can be filled in. I implore you to implement some mechanism that assures that Lake Conrad 2 is in fact protected as you have been telling the public it will be. Until you are able to do so, please defer or deny this application in its present form. If you deny it, there are several churches who would like to make use of the Religious Use that was granted Wycliffe in 1966.

Thank you,

Windy Crutchfield, District 9

.

April 2, 2024

Dear Honorable Mayor Dyer and Honorable Virginia Beach City Council Members,

Great Neck Estates residents deserve to feel safe and secure in our community. 

Safeguarding our community from harmful development is not to much to ask of our leadership. 

As a resident of Great Neck Estates and a longtime Virginia Beach resident, I am very concerned about the future of our neighborhood. 

Please do not set a precedent to change the current zoning from residential to office/business to meet the desires of a builder.

There are no businesses permitted North of Wycliffe Presbyterian Church. There are no new driveways permitted along Great Neck Road.

 Why would you ask us to accept a business zoning in our established neighborhood?

Why would you add more traffic on Millwood Road? 

I highly oppose the proposed Wycliffe development plan and zoning change requested by Bishard Homes. 

Traffic congestion is a daily occurrence on Great Neck Road which led to the death of an elderly resident of Great Neck Estates not so many years ago. 

She was trying to make a turn from Millwood Road onto Great Neck Road. 

There have been a total of 99 car accidents within a half mile of Millwood / Great Neck Estates from 2021- 2023. 

A father and local baseball coach lost his life not long ago when a truck crossed over and hit him head on!! His memorial sits on Great Neck between Shorehaven and Burton Road. 

The VBPD has labeled Great Neck Road as an area of concern due to multiple incidents. 

Many serious car accidents occur on a regular basis on Great Neck Road within our immediate vicinity. 

I’m very concerned for the safety of our residents. We can’t handle any additional traffic on Millwood Road. 

Spot Zoning doesn’t belong in Great Neck Estates. 

Is your neighborhood next?

YourNeighborhoodNext.com

I implore every person on VB city council to vote NAY to a zoning change that will negatively impact Virginia Beach citizens. 

Respectfully Yours,

Julia Cherry District 8

March 28 2024

Council,

Arguably the prime real estate on Great Neck Road, Wycliffe offers architecture, both historic and modern, scenic vistas and a wildlife habitat that you don’t just find on any corner.

The property was not marketed to recognize its features.  Instead it was targeted for profit in a way that under values its use.

The decades long business model of Presbyterian USA created a growth level of 75 new members in the last 10 years.  Will Wycliffe be sacrificed to serve a short term goal with long term impacts?  The value of the property as a whole should not be underestimated. Plans that fit the property and its surroundings are possible.  Wycliffe can and should do better.

The initial majority congregation vote was ill informed of the destruction that would come.  The planning department overlooked obstacles and favored cutting corners to push it forward.

Wycliffe is a very desirable asset and can continue to be a special place.  The decades long relationship between the church community and the city can continue to benefit the citizens of Virginia Beach.

I encourage you to vote No to the plans before you today.  Voting no does not deny a future for Wycliffe, it secure a better one.

Michelle Conti District 8

Sent March 27, 2024 

Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

A few items were raised at yesterday’s review of the Wycliffe Development that we would like to address. The community is opposed to re-zoning the parcel to O-1.

This new proposal fits the definition of illegal spot zoning, since all of the surrounding property is zoned R-10 (photo) and the rezoning only serves two private entities over the welfare of the community. The residents adjacent to this parcel bought homes knowing that they were surrounded by residential lots that were currently being used by a church. The business park will not be visible from Great Neck Road, is not located on a road with through traffic, and contradicts the Comprehensive Plan for Suburban Areas.

 Staff reported to you today that O-1 zoning allows a maximum height of 35 feet, which they stated is the same height as the current R-10 zoning. The significant differences are:

1. 0-1 has a rear yard setback of 10 feet as opposed to 20 feet in R-10, providing a greater negative impact on the existing homes.

2. O-1 zoning behind homes is less valuable than R-10.

3. 0-1 zoning with a 4000 square foot building adds 58 daily trips to the traffic on the neighborhood street, plus another 50 daily trips for the new residential lots. This is a total of 108 daily trips added to the interior of a neighborhood. If the property were to retain its zoning and be developed accordingly, only 3 additional homes (or 30 daily trips) would be possible—30% less than what is being proposed.

4. Trash dumpster placement for neither the residential or office zoning has been determined, but locating it behind the four homes on Millwood Road appears a likely expectation, considering there isn’t enough open space on the home lots.

Another important issue to consider is that there are deed restrictions in place on this neighborhood property that Planning Staff have been made aware of. Identified as Lot 1 for Great Neck Estates, the property on Millwood Road is restricted from operating as anything other than residential or church use, is prohibited from having a commercial sign or being used for commercial purposes, and is not allowed to have a perimeter fence. These are all elements of this new re-zoning proposal. The supporting documents have been provided to Staff.

Finally, there are concerns with the two variances requested that should be concretely addressed prior to consideration because they are currently not necessary. There are currently no utilities being run off of Great Neck Road to this parcel, which has been cited as a reason for the reverse flag lot. All existing utilities, water, sewer, electricity, cable are on Millwood Road. Further, Dominion Energy, as of yesterday, said they have no record of any request to vacate 10 feet of their 30 foot easement or to relocate the power lines. This variance will not be necessary if that easement reduction is granted. The attorney for the applicant indicated this approval is imminent, yet it apparently has not be requested. Therefore, it appears these two requested variances are due to the developer rushing through a process. I understand that Council is obligated by code to oppose variances caused by self-inflicted hardships.

It seems there are important considerations that haven’t been thoroughly explored. At present, this new re-zoning plan only causes harm to an existing community and presents no benefits. We want to express our sincerest appreciation for the questions that have been posed both privately and publicly by this Council, especially for those of you who have accepted our calls. We remain available at your convenience to answer questions from any of you and are grateful for your careful consideration of the weaknesses of this proposal.

“Team Red Bridge”

Sent March 3, 2024 

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 District 9

Sent to Planning Commission March 12, 2024

Planning Commissioners: 

As you consider the JPA Application remember that the Developer started this in September 2022 and was pushed through at City Council when MAJOR REDESIGN Changes were made from building 12 houses and filling in Lake Conrad 2 to now 5 houses abutting Lake Conrad2 and the round about road with no Lake barrier or buffer filter of contamination from the road & houses. 

Why is there an incorrect Wetland's Determination Form for 3207 Millwood thats about half mile from Wycliffe ?

And Bay Environmental is using the wrong address? 

Does the Developer or Consultants know where the property is located? Why are the documents submitted wrong? 

It’s been reported when doing Due Diligence that the Developer has had issues in Virginia Beach and the headline speaks loudly “shoddy work “?

Is this what will happen at LakeConrad2

Marsh Creek Development - this application should be deferred until the JPA is corrected to the proper address. Planning Commission can visit Marsh Creek and see whats being pushed through for Developers and impact on the creek. 

I am opposed to the Developer building the road roundabout abutting Lake Conrad2 with no buffer or barrier for vehicles. Sadly people can die in a submerged vehicle very quickly 

https://nypost.com/2024/03/09/us-news/angela-chao-made-panicked-call-before-dying-in-completely-submerged-tesla-on-texas-ranch/

Taking time and doing this application correctly is important because there is so little land available. There are no do-overs when bulldozing wetlands. 

Rona Marsh 

Sent to Planning 3/10/24

Dear Mayor Dyer, City Council, and Planning Commissioners of Virginia Beach-

Our citizens have not forgotten the flooding problems from the past and are still dealing with it still today.

I adamantly oppose the development at Wycliffe Church so our neighborhood won't look like the ones below or have major flooding problems on Great Neck Road. 

Great Neck road is a very heavily traversed road and extra water on it won't help accidents from happening. We have had major accidents resulting in death on this road in the past year. Not to mention, a tornado visited us less than a year ago. 

Our lawns are soaked from the rain just this week. We have sitting water in our yards and collection of water in our streets. Building 5 homes on the property at Wycliffe is a bad design on top of a horrible plan. 

REMEMBER- the water has to go somewhere and replacing green space with non pervious surfaces is only going to lead to disaster. 

The church is more than welcome to sell their property after the contract is up with BISHARD HOMES to the city for a park. This is what the parishioners truly want to see happen to this beautiful open space that serves and protects the animals, ecosystem, stormwater inlet, flooding, etc. (I think you get the point.)

Most of the congregation would rather see a park for open space  than 5 overbuilt vinyl siding  homes that don't match our brick one story neighborhood. 

You make regulations for neighborhoods, BUT then you don't follow them, so what good is having them in the first place? 

Regarding the BOND REFERENDUM that the citizens voted for in 2021-even if you haven't enacted it for the city to follow for controlling runaway development, THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, THEY ARE TIRED OF THE OVERDEVELOPMENT OF VIRGINIA BEACH AND NEIGHBORHOOD FLOODING. 

It passed  with our VOTE, therefore it should be in full force whether you say it is or not! The people want to see you follow their request, not the Developers! We outnumber them and they are making our once beautiful city UGLY. 

You make it look like you are working on it, but really you are just kicking the can down the road so developers can get as much development done before you implement the BOND Referendum completely. Whatever negative outcome arises from your decisions, remember it is your fault and responsibility.

NOT HAPPY with your current standards. 

https://www.wavy.com/news/vb-taxpayers-will-pay-more-than-originally-expected-for-ashville-park-flooding-fixes/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUIQq6F3ygw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxOSkUl9LDo&pp=ygUpZmxvb2RpbmcgcHJvYmxlbXMgaW4gdmlyZ2luaWEgYmVhY2ggdG9kYXk%3D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0kRlEEY6ok

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moqMYQQLRlQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7wakWFXons

Constantine Passaris II

Feb 23, 24

Planning Commission and City Council, 



As a 25 year member of the original Wycliffe congregation, the philosophy of the Presbyterian church doctrine compels me to speak up. We are called on to be active regarding social and moral issues including environmental concerns.

As a Virginia Beach resident you only have to look around to realize the biggest threat we face is the one our sister city Norfolk is drowning in, water.  It is constantly in the news and our leaders promote ways of dealing with flooding and standing water.  Our city actively promotes retention ponds as a formidable tool to combat stormwater runoff.  These projects include absorption buffers much wider than the revised project before you now.  As a city we have spent countless dollars to stay above water. Building infrastructures that include drainage are a large part of our public works budget.

Having a natural watershed is a priceless blessing.  Our watershed was even dredged to maintain its integrity.  The open space uplands portion of the Wycliffe property is also an integral part of natural filtration.  

This decision should not be driven by the monetary income it creates for the businesses engaged in the transaction.  The church has received over 60 years of tax relief and now is requesting a modification of use and boundary change to profit at the detriment of the neighbors and wildlife that call this area home and have for decades.  The church is not entitled to a zoning change any more than its neighbors are.  Maintaining the status quo provides reasonably expected stability to surrounding properties. The financial need of the church does not negate the conditions they accepted when purchasing the property.  

The lake was here first and its health should be the priority in any encroaching development.  That includes the green space that provides natural filtration to water that eventually enters the Lynnhaven River.

While the project may look possible on the paper plans, just because it could be built doesn’t mean it should be built. 

I would suggest the city of Virginia Beach’s large public works budget include regular maintenance of this watershed.  The church could donate or sell the wetland portion of the property to its financial benefit and realize a goal while relieving itself of any ongoing burdens it may bear. It would set an example of responsible ownership and goodwill to its neighbors.  After all, isn’t that what it’s all about?

In closing, the city of Virginia Beach and Wycliffe Presbyterian church should practice what they preach.  We cannot say one thing while doing another.  The Ripple Effect is in play here as this project is in defiance of the Bond Referendum.  We are all connected in the outcome of this application, let us make the common sense decision.

 Michelle Conti

 Feb 29, 2024

Dear Ms Cuellar,

So it seems Bishard Development continues to try and fit a square peg into a round hole. This self-declared “spot builder” has mucked up more than one “spot” in Virginia Beach in the quest for the almighty dollar.

  And while Mr Bishard has given up his absurd idea of filling Lake Conrad 2 so that he could cram 12 houses on a storm water management site—the LAKE!—he remains tone deaf to the citizens and residents of the area in his desire to turn R10 Residential zoning—“church use”—into “Office Zoning.”

   Really? This builder has repeatedly offended the sensibilities of planning commission members over the years; he has had to reconstruct flawed projects, and even been told not to come back to planning by planning commissioners of the past, they were so offended. But he has built some clout over the years, has some friends in high places, and has the favor of a land use attorney who is not sure/clear of exactly who he represents/who his client is.

   The planning commission has been clear that they don’t care for the ideas of this builder and the modifications coming before you next week should not assuage your first inclinations about putting your stamp of approval on this “spot” development. Virtually no one in the Great Neck corridor wants it—especially those who live in the neighborhood he hopes to bastardize.

   Thank you for your ear. Hope you are doing well.

Sincerely,

Martha Thereault

PS The Atlantic Park project has caused serious environmental harm to Lake Holly. Aresenic has now entered the lake because of faulty development oversight. Mr. Bishard’s company is part of this development project. Multi-millions of tax payers money is being wasted by reckless development in VB. Though others are involved in Atlantic Park besides Bishard, I believe the example of poor development practices is evident here as it is at Lake Conrad.

Martha Thereault

October 2023

Dear City Council:  

I am a resident of the City of Virginia Beach and near daily travel the N. Great Neck Road corridor.  I am a civil engineer with over 35 years experience in water resources and stormwater management.  I am writing to voice opposition to the proposed land use change associated with the 10-12 lots proposed at the south corner of N. Great Neck Road at the entrance to the Great Neck Estates Subdivision at/near to the WyCliffe Presbyterian Church property and Lake Conrad. 

My opposition is for several reasons as outlined below:

1. Entrance Configuration.  The entrance to the proposed subdivision would be situated within an existing entrance to a larger subdivision.  There would be very short separation distance to the intersection with a major arterial road.  This would create potential traffic and vehicle collision potential.  Certainly siting an entrance for a new subdivision as such within an existing entrance to a large subdivision does not meet road/subdivision street design standards of city public works and/or VDOT.

2. Open Space.  This corner land area is just a beautiful open space.  It is large, at a corner, with disconnection from road surface drainage.  It has a rolling slope with open space turf and meadow, and wooded riparian area with open water.  It provides nice separation from the church property/use and a sewer pumping station to the larger existing subdivision community.  Slamming 10 to 12 lots like anywhere USA into this area would change land use from open space to home/lot subdivision and would be a shame from a recreation, scenic viewshed and community character perspective.   There are very view open space community character chunks of nice open space left along this heavily urbanized road corridor. 

3. Wetland System.  The open water and periphery bordering shoreline trees, shrubs and plants are jurisdictional nontidal wetlands a portion of which will need to be FILLED for the proposed subdivision roads and lots.  Although the open water area at this location is overall considered a lower quality nontidal wetland system, it is still a regulated non-tidal wetland and is a beautiful open space/riparian SYSTEM.  It has rolling slope, open space turf and meadow, wooded riparian area, open water and wetland plants along the water shoreline.  Filling of a portion of this feature would also greatly affect aquatic and wildlife habitat associated with the open water and riparian area.

4. Pretreatment Feature.  Besides being a jurisdictional nontidal wetland, the open water within this open space is a pretreatment sediment forebay serving downstream Lake Conrad proper.  An existing 42-inch storm drain pipe outfalls into this forebay/open water area from the N. Great Neck Road drainage system.  A 24-inch stormwater pipe also enters the forebay/open water from the south church parcel.  A pretreatment sediment forebay serves great purpose for water quality and for the ecosystem associated with a larger water body like Lake Conrad.  It is a place for sediments and nutrients to settle out prior to reaching the main water body.  It gives a centralized place to access and remove accumlated sediments.  If the forebay is eliminated or reduced in size, such sediments and nutrients work their way downstream into the larger lake body.  This would result (over time) in increased sediment and nutrient load to the larger lake body thus potentially accelerating the need to dredge and creating algae or other nutrient problems on the lake.  (Note:  the manufactured treatment device that is conceptually proposed by city stormwater management CIP, MS4 or TMDL program would not equally compensate for loss of this large pretreatment sediment forebay system.  It is near impossible to provide a manmade device that will provide equal benefits to this natural system.)

5. Water Quantity.  As mentioned, a 42-inch and a 24-inch stormwater pipe from the municipal system (road and church) already empties into this area.  Flows from these size pipes are large when precipitation events happen.  Although the N. Great Neck Rd at this location may not flood at the roadside inlets, you do not see the large amount of flow conveyed to the pretreatment sediment forebay/open water in an UNCONTROLLED MANNER as it is in the subsurface pipe system.  Flow from these pipes are then conveyed directly to Lake Conrad proper.  A new subdivision with roadways and 10 to 12 lots with high density as proposed is required to provide for water quantity control from the development itself in accordance with local planning/zoning requirements, state/local Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control (VESCP) and Virginia Stormwater Management (VSMP) Programs and local public works manual requirements.  This would be impossible based on the current plan arrangement which is basically slamming 10-12 lots and roads on the parcel without any provisions for stormwater management.  Allowing Lake Conrad proper to be used to meet water quantity requirements (ie. accepting flows from the new subdivision in an uncontrolled manner) goes against every premise of these programs plus the state/local Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Program, Floodplain Management Program, MS4 and TMDL Programs and this city’s Flood Protection Program (bond referendum).

6. Drainage System.  As noted above, there is an existing 42-inch stormwater pipe outfall to the sediment forebay/open water system.  Concept plat/plan for the proposed 10-12 lot subdivision shows the area where the existing 42-inch pipe outfalls to be FILLED thus required new pipe extensions from the existing 42-inch outfall to connect and be routed through the proposed road and lot subdivision.  To route a drainage system as such would require even larger pipe such as 48-, 54- or even 60-inch to be routed through the road/lot fill areas along/under the road or even under lots using hard turns (ie. 90 degree bends, etc.) to a new outfall somewhere at Lake Conrad proper.  Pipe sizes would increase as the new extended drainage system would need to meet subdivision and stormwater drainage standards of the city (ie. Public Works Manual requirements including hydraulic grade line/city model standards).  Realignment of a stormwater pipe system of this size in this manner is a problem waiting to happen.  

7. Fill.  To put in the proposed lot and road subdivision as the concepts show will require mass clearing, grading and filling of the land parcel.  Filling as such would be required to be performed with proper types of soil and testing, thus requiring multiple truck loads of fill to be imported to the site.  This will increase construction traffic along N. Great Neck Rd and the entrance to Great Neck Estates beyond that normally expected in the development of a site and in accordance with performance standards that use topography, minimizes land disturbance, and preserves existing vegetation to the maximum extent practicable for the proposed use or development.  Placing homes and roads on large depths of fill, even though engineered, could cause issues later such as settlement and erosion if not properly designed, constructed and monitored.

8. Lake Conrad. Lake Conrad is a state regulated impounding structure (dam), Inventory No. 810004.  Increased drainage/runoff from the proposed subdivision - in an uncontrolled manner (ie. no water quantity) - could/may result in the need for principal and/or emergency spillway improvements on the dam.  If you keep adding impervious area within the 0.46 square mile (or near 300 acres) watershed of the lake without stormwater management, in time improvements from new subdivisions, new or expanded commerical areas, or even existing single-family lots could result in spillway improvements to the lake itself.  This lake is infrastructure itself and is only there because of the dam and the spillway control mechanisms of the dam.  Adding stresses to the dam and it's operating features from more runoff on an already aging structure is ultimately a recipe for failure.  

In summary, slamming 10 to 12 lots in this area is just not proper planning or engineering per the above reasons and why I express my opposition to change of land use designation or approval of this legislative case.  Either find a way to save this open space or allow for a use that better works the needs of the church with the existing features of this parcel 

Member of Wetlands Watch

Submitted by Michelle Conti on 9/5/23

Council,

Since the passing of the Flood Prevention Bond Referendum in November 2021 by a unanimous vote of the Virginia Beach City Council, the council has delayed its execution into the Comprehensive Plan no less than four times.  

With full knowledge of its impacts, some members have said it was rushed although it had been on the ballot since July. The taxpayers of Virginia Beach who voted for the $567.5M Flood Prevention Bond Referendum did so to keep Virginia Beach Above Water, agreeing to tax increases over the decade. Citizens are directly impacted by “The Ripple Effect” objective and have expectations that the approved referendum be acted upon.

The Wycliffe CUP that is front of council now is the exact type of development proposal that the referendum was intended to deny.  City council would be wise to recognize the property rights of the surrounding area and maintain the status quo.  The Wycliffe CUP is not an entitlement and the city cannot afford the liability of changing the use.  

We can all recognize the God given value asset that is Wycliffe.  We can easily utilize the green space and natural drainage to meet the Flood Referendum requirements. Continued collaboration of the owner and the city and the effectiveness of "The Ripple Effect" depends on it.

Today’s council has an opportunity to support its citizens and gain back the confidence of voters who care about our city and its future!  Vote Nay to the Wycliffe CUP!

It’s the only option.

Submitted on 8/23/23

Since the passing of the Flood Prevention Bond Referendum in November 2021, put on the ballot through a unanimous vote of the Virginia Beach City Council after extensive marketing of The Ripple Effect, the planning and city councils have delayed its execution into the Comprehensive Plan no less than four times.  

With full knowledge of its impacts, some members have said it was rushed. The taxpayers of Virginia Beach who voted for the $567.5 Flood Prevention Bond Referendum did so to keep Virginia Beach Above Water, agreeing to tax increases over the decade. Taxpayers are directly impacted by its objective and have the Mayor and City Council dead to rights in upholding the approved referendum.

The Wycliffe CUP that is front of council now is the exact type of development proposal that the referendum was intended to deny, one with a watershed and drainage easement.  City council would be wise to recognize the property rights of the surrounding area and not increase stormwater drainage run off.  Using delay tactics to not enforce the Flood Protection Bond Referendum to favor developers has the appearance of gross negligence.

Today’s council has an opportunity to support its taxpaying citizens and gain the confidence of voters who care about our city and its future!

 Submitted by Rona Marsh

On 8/28/23

Councilmembers- 

Heavy rain falling across the warned Northeast Virginia Beach area. 

Tropical Storm hasn’t even arrived and there’s Flash Flooding? 

Up to 2.5 inches of

rain have fallen. Additional rainfall amounts up to 2 inches are
possible in the warned area. Flash flooding is ongoing or expected
to begin shortly.

This is WHY Lake Conrad2 is needed and should NOT be filled in for houses off Great Neck Rd. 

Fix the Flooding language in the Comprehensive Plan you promised 2 years ago when the $567 Flood bond’s were approved by voters. 

An amendment to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan that will recommend denial for any project or development that generates a net increase in water discharge demand in any watershed or in any drainage system in watershed over the capacity of net of margin to meet the modeled discharge baseline of the drainage system at build-out, and further requiring the Planning Department to recommend denial of any submission that does not conform to the former. 

Rona Marsh

District 8 

Also on 8/28/23 with associated photo evidence of all statements:

City Council, 

In 2019, VBGOV paid $140,638.10 to the City’s contractor for Lake Conrad 2 maintenance. And another $12,000 was paid to cut down many large  trees. Both amounts are from VBGov staff. 

Thats $152,000 Taxpayers dollars. Now after spending $152,000 taxpayers dollars and the VB Citizens easement are being forgotten to fill in Lake Conrad2 for houses? This would remove 53,500 cubic feet of stormwater capacity that the 30+ acres uses 70 drains that empty into Lake Conrad2 - so where’s the water going to go? There’s no mitigation by the developer planned for Great Neck? 

Tropical Storm Idalia is heading towards Virginia Beach and it is foolish to remove stormwater capacity. Its around 27 inches deep

in the middle of Lake Conrad2when measured from Red Bridge.  

VBGOV is spending $68 million to add storm water capacity at Bow Creek. Is anyone aware of the SWMF spending at Lake Conrad2 which now seems wasteful to fill with dirt and to remove Stormwater capacity???

Taxpayer’s dollars stabilized the existing outfall by installing riprap protection and removing accumulated sediment beginning at the outfall located northeast of 2307 Millwood Road and extending for ±336 linear feet to the southwest within Lake Conrad #2. 

The accumulated sediment was removed from a 3,515 square foot area, within the City’s Maintenance Easement for a maximum width of 10 feet wide and depth to match the invert of the existing outfall. 

There are many citizens very concerned about the application to fill in Lake Conrad 2  for Wycliffe Subdivision. 

As Tropical Storm Idalia approaches and the threat of heavy rains,  existing homes depend on the series of 70 drains on more than 30+ acres that use Lake Conrad 2 and its CONTINUOUSLY Streaming quantity to hold over 53,500 cubic feet of stormwater.

 (per VBGov stormwater)

Don’t make another $11 million mistake like Asheville Park. Keep the CUP as it has been for decades which has benefited the Church financially. 

Rona Marsh 

District 8 

On August 12, 2023

Councilmembers & Mayor

A few years back at the Council Retreat these below were some priorities. As you prepare for this year’s retreat please focus on protecting waterways and flooding concerns. 

Lake Conrad2 is Virginia Beach SWMF Stormwater Management facility that is reported to DEQ for the MS4 Permit Annual Report on Stormwater Management. 

Taxpayer’s dollars have been spent over the years to add stormwater drain pipes from surrounding neighborhoods to direct stormwater into Lake Conrad2. Recently in February 2022 Public Works Operations removed trees around Lake Conrad2 so this is an Asset of VBGOV. I know of no other City Asset that is potentially being turned into a Developer building site let alone giving up a Stormwater Management facility to build houses? 

What is VBGOV getting to compensate for the loss of Lake Conrad2 this stormwater asset? The $567.5 million bonds to fix flooding are supposed to improve the flooding but giving away a SWMF seems like a big mistake? 

Building homes on Lake Conrad2 as proposed by a developer goes against the EPA/DEQ Best Management Practices. Lake Conrad2 holds around 54,000 cubic gallons of stormwater and many citizens are concerned about flooding. There is a petition “ No Building on VB Wetlands” that has over 

3,020 signatures(and growing)!

Lake Conrad2 is in the National Wetlands Inventory and VBGOV needs a Conprehensive Plan policy to restrict building in National Wetlands Inventory and SWMF Stormwater facilities.

Don’t make another costly $11 million dollar mistake allowing developers to build where it floods. Taxpayer’s paid for it at Asheville Park. 

Rona Marsh

Thalia

Submitted by Windy Crutchfield

On Sept 5, 2023

Pleasure House Lake is the precedent.  A private landowner was receiving regulatory permission to fill in part of this lake in 1990 in order to build homes. The city condemned the land (under CA Mark Stiles) and paid him fair market value. The issue was storm drainage and outfall.  This case mirrors the situation at Lake Conrad 2 in both public use, storm drainage, and historic relevance within a community. This is part of the current Lake Bradford, Chubb Lake FPP investments. Lake Conrad 2, which already has received significant city infrastructure dollars to dredge and maintain, should be transferred to the city under eminent domain. This stormwater asset should not be turned over to a private landowner to capitalize on our tax dollars.

Please consider this in your discussions.

Kindly,

Windy Crutchfield

On August 29, 2023 with associated video.

City Council Members,

This is a video taken this afternoon from Lake Conrad 2, just upstream from my home. The application before you on September 19 to remove the Church Use permit and return the property to residential housing not only endangers my downstream property but eliminates the city’s SWMF asset for the benefit of two private businesses—one that hasn’t paid taxes to the City of Virginia Beach in six decades yet has reaped many benefits of city investments. I have not only paid my fair share of taxes but have paid thousands to dredge my portion of the lake adjacent to this city owned (and neglected) canal. This is part of the MS4 Receiving Waters.

This vote coming before you will enable the builder to build homes after filling in this lake. Not only do we need legislation to protect our stormwater drainage waterways like the Comprehensive Plan resolution signed by this continuous body, we want a return on our investment into this parcel of land. In the last five years alone, the city has invested in a new roof, new HVAC system, paint, carpet, maintenance on the A-frame building and tree removal and dredging of the pond. A YAY vote for this application would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Thank you for your serious attention.

Windy Crutchfield 

Individual emails with expansive details were sent to Councilmen Taylor and Schulman.