Citizens have published a new Change.org petition to highlight concerns for the upcoming rezoning and sale of land that will be used for expansion of Coastal Concrete. As of this writing, 400 signatures have been garnered. The land is owned by Southport, and rezoning the parcel is contingent for the completion of the sale. The petition is designed for the consumption by the Cape Charles Town Council:
Archives for July 2021
NEW: Town Manager Clarifies Concrete Plant Zoning Kerfuffle
The proposed zoning changes around the harbor that are part of the sale of some property from Southport to Coastal Precast (Concrete Plant) has sent some in town into full-blown meltdown mode. Below is a community message from Town Manager Hozey which attempts to clarify the staff’s responsibility, as well as current zoning status:
Public Hearing Addresses Rezoning Request for Coastal Concrete Expansion
The Cape Charles Planning Commission approved text changes to the Town Ordinance that would allow for some light industrial uses in the harbor district. Part of the proposed uses include manufacturing, assembly and storage of
products.
The changes to the the current zoning district regulations for GBI-H1 involve altering a provision (Section 3.14 (F) (7) that restricts light industrial use. According to the town staff, these regulations need to be considered for removal from the district regulations altogether.
The majority of public comments were against the expansion. Citizens continue to have concerns about the dust and noise generated by the men working at the concrete plant. The hearing lasted over three hours.
Note: The request by South Port Investors, LLC to rezone 1201 Bayshore Road for a proposed use of manufacturing, assembly and storage of products came as the result of a proposed sale to Coastal Concrete which plans to expand local operations in the area. The parcel is approximately 11.79 acres. The sale of the property was contingent upon getting the zoning ordinance changes.
Below is the resolution passed on May 20th by Town Council signaling its intent to review and take up the proposed zoning changes. This will be taken up at the next Town Council Regular Meeting on July 22nd:
Gerry’s: The Best Pizza on the Shore
With summer in full swing, locals realize that you have to fight for your right to attend any of our local eateries. But if you just want a great pizza, why fight when you can avoid Cape Charles altogether and just cruise on over to Gerry’s Ristorante at 22115 Lankford Highway. Straight up, this is the very best pizza on the Shore. The pizzas are so delicious we have even visited twice on the same day!
The sauce is consistently delicious, but what separates Gerry is the quality of the crust–not super thin, not bloated, just the perfect blend of crunch, softness, and flavor. To describe the crust, I would just say real authentic Italian, traditional, legit.
Speaking of crust, it is summer and many of you want to hold onto that beach body. Gerry’s has you covered with an incredible Keto pie made with a cauliflower crust. It’s hard to move me off the traditional, but the keto pie packs all the flavor of the wheat flour crust. Excellent.
Everything is always so fresh, from the toppings to the ingredients in the salads. The Caprese, Greek, Caesar, Chef, Cobb, and Chicken always wipe away the, “Oh no, why did I order a salad!” dread.
Still in the mood for something else? Gerry’s has you covered with subs with great bread and seems to be packed like you’re at an old-school deli. The oven-baked pasta is also a tasty alternative.
The staff is always cheerful and courteous, and the service is fast. We can’t recommend this place any more than this.
Located just outside Cape Charles at 22115 Lankford Highway. (757) 331-1140, check them out on Facebook.
Docket for Historic District Review Board Regular Meeting July 20
Historic District Review Board Regular Meeting is scheduled for July 20th at :00 p.m. The docket is full, and here is the rundown of applications for work in the Historic District:
• Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install solar panels at 117 Strawberry St
• Application for Certificate of Appropriateness to install a storage shed at 227 Madison Ave
• Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to renovate the existing garage building at
630 Tazewell Avenue
• Pre-Application for Certificate of Appropriateness for storage shed at 524C Washington Ave
• Pre-Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a fence at 114 Pine Street
• Pre-Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new home on lot 84 on
Strawberry Street
• Pre-Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace garage doors at 201
Madison Avenue
• Pre-Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 220 Monroe Avenue to replace
windows with French doors
• Pre-Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a shed and fence at 406
Jefferson Avenue
• Pre-Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new home on lots 337 &
340 on Tazewell Avenue
Let’s Look Back: The Annexation Agreement, Law No. 27, and the Connector Road
With the Town Council approving the sale and expansion of Coastal Concrete, it may be a good to review our history, especially as it pertains to taxpayer dollars being used inappropriately to construct the connector road that benefits not only Bay Creek residents, but mainly Coastal. History can be brutal, especially when you try and run from it. Annexation Agreement, Law No. 27 is pretty clear: Bay Creek, not the Virginia Taxpayer was obligated to pay for the connector road. The delicious part is that the law is still in effect, and the bodies are buried in open sight. This fact makes a lot of powerful people squirm, as it should:
On September 9, 2016, the Cape Charles Mirror contacted the Virginia Department of Transportation regarding the Route 642 connecter road project in Cape Charles, sometimes referred to as the “Harbor Access Road”. The Mirror submitted a series of questions, and on November 21, 2016, VDOT sent the following responses (VDOT responses are in italics):
I.Have VDOT attorneys reviewed the Annexation Agreement between the Town of Cape Charles and then developer Brown and Root?
VDOT attorneys neither reviewed the Annexation Agreement nor were they aware of any obligations thereto, prior to or at the time of the project. As a result of this inquiry, our attorney obtained and reviewed the Annexation Agreement.
II.Does Bay Creek South, LLC, as successor in interest to Brown & Root, Inc., Brown & Root I, Inc. and Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc. as developer and primary owner of Bay Creek, have an obligation to construct VDOT Project No. 0642-065-577 (UPC103391) at its sole expense?
VDOT believes that Bay Creek South, LLC has a legal obligation to construct VDOT Project No. 0642-065-577 (the “Project”) at its sole expense.
The Annexation Order entered by the Circuit Court of Northampton County on November 26, 1991 and recorded among the land records of Northampton County on December 9, 1991 in Deed Book 252 at page 649, obligates Brown & Root I, Inc. to “construct or have constructed a new two-lane access road into its development to accommodate traffic from [Bay Creek, formerly known as Accawmacke Plantation], provided the necessary land and easements are acquired and providing all necessary permits are obtained.”
The Report of the Commission on Local Government on the Town of Cape Charles – County of Northampton Annexation Action dated February, 1991 (the “Report”), which was incorporated into the Annexation Order by reference, contains strong language providing the justification for placing the burden to construct and pay for the Project on the developer of Bay Creek. There is also a referenced Agreement between Brown & Root I, Inc. and the Town of Cape Charles (the “Town”) dated March 13, 1990 (the “Developer’s Agreement”), an Amendment to the Developer’s Agreement dated November 25, 1991 (the “Amendment”) and an Agreement between the Town, Northampton County (the “County”) and Brown & Root I, Inc. dated November 25, 1991 (the “Town-County-Developer Agreement”), all of which are incorporated by reference into the Annexation Order or Amendment.
III.Why didn’t VDOT know about the Annexation Agreement between the Town of Cape Charles and then developer Brown and Root?
There are 3 project parcels at issue, Parcels 004, 006 and 010.
Parcels 004 and 006 were handled by Northampton County. Acquisitions activity on these parcels, including Title research, was not performed by VDOT and the title report reviewed by VDOT did not reference the existence of any proffers.
Although VDOT did handle Parcel 010, in searching for the existence of proffers, VDOT must rely on the responses from localities where any such proffers might be present. We ask for written responses from Planning Departments as part of our diligence. VDOT asked the County to provide any information regarding zoning restrictions, special use permits, unrecorded proffers and open zoning cases concerning parcel 010 and we were told that none of those were applicable to Parcel 010. As a result, any related Annexation Agreements were not known to us.
On November 22, 2016, The Mirror responded (italics):
Thank you so much for the response, it is much appreciated. Given VDOT attorneys feel the developer has a legal obligation to construct VDOT Project No. 0642-065-577, what are the next steps? Will there be a stop work order while this is hashed out? One question the attorneys should ask is why VDOT was not made aware of the annexation agreement by the Mayor and Town Council of Cape Charles, as well as Northampton County, and was allowed to fund this project using taxpayer funds when they were fully aware of the agreement between the town and then developer Brown and Root. I can provide correspondence going to back to 2004 which can verify this. Also, the current County Attorney should have been aware since he was the person that signed the annexation agreement in 1991.
VDOT contacted the Mirror on January 12, 2017 at 9:00 AM per Paula Miller, Communications Manager for VDOT Hampton Roads. While VDOT attorneys agree that the developer Bay Creek South should be funding this project in whole, since they were not party to the agreement, their hands are tied in terms of enforcing it. According VDOT, only the Town or the County can enforce it. The Mirror asked how VDOT came to its determination, as well as whether it was their decision not to attempt to find out why they were not made aware of the Annexation Agreement during planning phases. This information was not available at the time.
Who will finally enforce Law No. 27, the Annexation Agreement between Cape Charles and Northampton?
Right now, the taxpayers are on the hook to pay close to $11 million for a roadway that, according VDOT attorneys and a legislative act of the state of Virginia, the developer, Bay Creek South, LLC is responsible for (as well as a $20 million wastewater treatment plant that was also part of the agreement).
Note: The Annexation Agreement “runs with the land”. That is, when Sinclair Communications purchased Bay Creek South, they also assumed responsibility for the agreement between the Town and the County. Bay Creek South changed hands and control on March 8, 2008 into Sinclair. Sinclair even had an Earning Conference call along with their earning release announcing the great deal they had made in Cape Charles. At the time, Sinclair seemed pleased that for $50m they acquired a 50% controlling interest in a property appraised at over $200m. While the purchase may have at first appeared to be a good deal, it may turn out to be more a “pig in a poke”.
Over the past 18 months, the Cape Charles Mirror has contacted current Mayor George Proto, Town Council, as well former County Administrator Katie Nunez and County Attorney Bruce Jones regarding this matter. While responses ranged from the vague to the “that was a long time ago’s”, a cursory review should have revealed that the original agreement signed by Brown&Root and the County was still valid and required enforcement (the Annexation Agreement resides in the Northampton County Courthouse). Former Mayor Dora Sullivan as well as Vice Mayor Chris Bannon, Councilwoman Joan Natail and Assistant Town Manager Bob Panek have been aware of their obligations to protect the citizens of Cape Charles and enforce the agreement since the early 2000s.
A Priority
In conversations with VDOT, it was noted that the 642 connector road was a priority project for both the County and the Town. Hints as to why can be gleaned from comments by Councilman Andy Buchholz who has stated on numerous occasions that the road was being funded and constructed for better access to the harbor.
There are two main reasons why better access to the harbor is required: the Cape Charles Yacht Center and the new Marine Terminal at the harbor parcel 83A3 – 11 – 2 . Both of these enterprises will need an expanded roadway to accomplish what they want to achieve.
It should be noted that the Cape Charles Yacht Center opened in May 2014, not long after the “Harbor Access Road” project was approved by VDOT in 2013. With construction of 642 in full swing, Cherrystone moved to have the zoning map amended for parcel 83A3-11-2 from Harbor District to Industrial M-2, paving the way for the new Marine Terminal. Town Council quickly green lighted this project in August 2016.
Open questions
Why did local officials allow VDOT to move forward without alerting them to the fact that the cost of the project was to fall on the developer, not the taxpayer?
Shouldn’t VDOT attorneys be more curious about why information regarding Law No. 27 was withheld from the agency?
How much did the Cape Charles’ town attorney Mike Sterling of Vandeventer Black, LLP understand of the agreement which clearly states that Bay Creek South, LLC is responsible for funding the entirety of the project?
Northampton County Attorney Bruce Jones represented Northampton during annexation negotiations. He is also the person that signed the agreement–shouldn’t he have had some recollection that VDOT should not be funding the project?
While the harbor access road will certainly bring with it some benefits, it is yet to be determined whether the ends justify the means. Relative to the rule of law, who then at the state level is going to defend the interests of the Virginia taxpayer?
More on the Annexation Agreement, Law No. 27:
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/cape-charles-642-reconstruction-project/
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/building-a-mystery-around-rt-642-project-in-cape-charles/
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/cape-charles-two-towns-one-zip-code/
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/cape-charles-virginia-built-on-a-foundation-of-lies-fraud-and-corruption/
Exmore Awarded $1 Million CDBG for Wastewater Project
EXMORE—In a competitive round of funding offered through the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCH), the Town of Exmore has been awarded a $1,000,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) in support of the town’s wastewater improvements project.
According to town officials, this advances Exmore’s goal for minimizing debt service for the critical upgrade and build out of the sewer system to keep use rates as low as possible for Exmore residents. “We appreciate and welcome DHCH’s support of Exmore’s wastewater improvements.” said Mayor Douglas H. Greer. “We recognize that through DHCH, Community Development Block Grant assistance goes to projects providing public water or sewer service for communities where 60 percent or more of the households have low to moderate-incomes. Exmore certainly qualifies, and our citizens, always at the center of our decision-making, will benefit from this grant.”
Exmore’s wastewater project, which will expand the current sewer service from roughly 350 household and business to over 900 hook-ups, will cost an estimated $17 million to complete. Additional funding sources include $3,005,300 in Principal Loan Forgiveness from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on repayment on a loan from that department totaling $10 million from that department. The $3,00r,300 DEQ loan forgiveness on the $10 million due leaves a balance of about $7 million with interest of 0.5%.
“Every grant, every loan opportunity takes us closer to our target of $17 million,” said Greer. “As we advance the project, aligned with the best interests of Exmore residents, we are grateful to the State of Virginia agencies for their ongoing support.”
Photographer Jim Baugh Captures Mimosa Barn
Photographer Jim Baugh is at it again, this time with beautiful images of “Mimosa Barn” and “Corn Shed” both at the same location on the Eastern Shore. Mimosa Barn, which is a beautiful event center. Both images were commissioned works and will be seen on our blog, however not for sale.
From Jim: The night was a wonderful July evening for filming and the weather was perfect. I filmed at three locations last night until around two am, had a great time under the stars. New moon is I think Friday, so all this week is good for Milky Way stargazing as long as skies are clear.
Photo info below:“Mimosa Even Center” 60 foreground RAW exposures, f 2.8 filmed at 11mm iso ranging from 100 to 400 with shutter ranging from 4 sec to 8 sec. Light, GVM RGB 7s and a spot. Monfrotto tripod, Vello intervalometer, lens muff with 3 heat packs, all exposures controlled through wifi.Milky Way: Ioptron sky tracker, 7-minute exposure, f 2.8, 11mm, iso 200, lens muff with 3 heat packs. trigger was the intervalometer, 5 sec delay with a 2 second drive off the camera.“Corn Shed” 24 foreground exposures ISO ranging from 100 to 400 and shutter ranging 4 to 8 seconds. F2.8, 11mm. Light, GVM RGB 7s. Moon was filmed with around 40 exposures. The Astro was a composite with the foreground stacked in Photoshop. The moon exposures were filmed on a separate night and were not tracked but fired off individually.Camera / Cannon 200d/SL2. Images script/stacked in photoshop and some processing on the Milky Way was done in Lightroom Classic.
Pet of the Week: Bridget is still waiting on her forever home!
Meet Bridgette!
Bridgette has been in our shelter for 1 year now. She loves to be with easy-going dogs and seems to thrive being one of a pack. She is, however, not very inter-active with people. She will come up for a treat, but then goes about her business; she is not a cuddly girl, wanting your undivided attention, a much more independent gal. She will need just the right home, with patience to watch her blossom.
She is 4-5 years old, a solid 45 lbs, probably lab mix, maybe some rotti or shepherd in there, also. Bridgette likes to bark, a lot, to get attention. So, a great dog trainer visited her and volunteers to find what works best to train her to not have to bark as much. She seems to catch on quickly that being quiet gets her a treat, so she is learning good habits she’ll be able to carry on at home.
She can not be around cats, nor small children. But give her a couple of dog mates, and she is truly happy. She loves to go for walks and adores squeaky toys, which she immediately tries to destroy. She is heartworm negative and on prevention, up to date on vaccines and dewormings, and already spayed.
You can get an adoption application in advance if you’d like. Applications are available at our shelter or by emailing shorespca@gmail.com and requesting one.
History Notes Special: Malibu Barbie Turns 50
In 1971, American society reeling from the Viet Nam War, the violent anti-war protests, economic instability, and ongoing civil rights battles. With this as a backdrop ‘Malibu Barbie’ was launched. With a newly sculpted face that featured an open smile for the first time, sun-tanned, make-up-free skin, and sun-kissed hair, ‘Malibu Barbie’ was the ultimate California surfer girl. The most significant change to Malibu Barbie’s appearance was the disappearance of Barbie’s coy, sideways glance and the introduction of forward-looking eyes, a development welcomed by feminists. Malibu Barbie projected an empowered and relaxed persona in a time, something we really needed back then.
Malibu Barbie was designed by Bill Greenberg, “
“Malibu Barbie was the first ‘Barbie’ doll (not counting Barbie doll’s friends) to have centered eyes and a smile with teeth. Barbie doll’s previous incarnations were always with a side glance and a closed mouth. She definitely had a more friendly appearance that I am sure appealed to kids. To me she looked like so many teenagers in my neighborhood growing up in California in the 1970s. Her blue swimsuit and yellow beach towel remind me of the water and the sun. Her pink bubble sunglasses are so iconic.”
Malibu PJ joins Malibu Barbie® in this sun-sational giftset. Bill says, “Malibu PJ features what collectors call the ‘Steffie’ face sculpt, because it was first introduced on Barbie doll’s friend Steffie. PJ features those pouty lips, lavender eyes, and pigtails wrapped in love beads. She is such a unique doll and was definitely my favorite growing up. Her lavender swimsuit really makes her eye color pop. She also comes with a mint green beach towel and pink bubble sunglasses. She is definitely a fan favorite and vintage models are high in demand.”
Rounding out the trio is Malibu Christie, and Bill is thrilled that Christie doll is making another appearance this year (after the Barbie® Signature 1977 Superstar Christie™ Doll vintage repro released last month). “Malibu Christie features the original Christie face sculpt with sleek black hair. I personally think she had the most exotic look of the three dolls. She has a red halter swimsuit and a bright white beach towel. Vintage Malibu Christie dolls are very hard to find, so I was excited to include in this reproduction giftset.”
To celebrate, Mattel has released a retro Mailbu Barbie set including PJ and Christie dolls, each wearing a replica of her original swimsuit. A towel, sunglasses, and vintage wrist tag complete each doll’s sun-kissed, beach-bound look.
Really, who doesn’t love California Girls!
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- …
- 9
- Next Page »