May 11, 2005
City Council Meeting
By Sandra Canepa
Mayor Kearney, Vice Mayor Spencer, Council Members
Once again I'm here in opposition to the Bayfront Initiative of the 2005 Buckroe Master Plan.
Tonight I want to tell Council and the viewing audience how very proud I am of the thousands of Hampton citizens who have signed, and who continue to sign, the petition to say "NO" to condo's on the green space of the former Buckroe Beach Amusement Park site.
This great number of signatures on the petition brings to mind some statements in a story that appears in this week's issue of Port Folio Magazine.
The story, titled "Battle for the Beach" is about Hampton and what is going on right now concerning the empty lots at Buckroe Beach, i.e., the Bayfront Initiative of the 2005 Buckroe Master Plan.
The story reports that Hampton City Council adopted the Buckroe Master Plan with the proviso they would "tweak" it concerning the green space.
The story also mentions the Plan is only a conceptual document, and there will be future opportunities for citizen input.
That is good news, and to assist Council with future public input on the Bayfront Initiative, the ones of us working to save the green space at Buckroe Beach have, in addition to the petition, prepared a letter, which will go out sometime this coming week.
The letter invites all of Hampton's 135 civic and professional organizations to join us in this fight to save the approximately 10 acres of green space at Buckroe Beach.
As many of you know, the petition requests those green acreas be designated as a professionally designed and landscaped Bayfront park for Hampton's now and future generations.
This week the Daily Press ran two big stories on Williamsburg's marketing blitz to try to turn around declining tourism.
Hampton has one of the world's greatest natural wonders, the Chesapeake Bay, sitting right on our doorstep. We don't have to build theme parks, maintain old historical homes, or create dramatic scenes to attract tourists and grab attention.
The Chesapeake Bay is the greatest theme park ever, it's historical, and we know it certainly can be dramatic.
Hampton only has to save this area and landscape it as a wonderful gateway to the Bay to attract even more tourists to our beautiful and unique waterfront. The park also could be a major revenue producing attraction with the right mix of special events, activities and services.
Condominiums are not going to cut it, not for our citizens, not for our tourists, and certainly not for the beauty of our magnificent Chesapeake Bay.
As more signatures are added to the petition, and as replies from organizations are received, I will paraphrase a statement made by Amy Hobbs in the Port Folio story. She said the Buckroe Civic Association’s 34-6 vote to endorse the Plan can be used by the city as an indicator of citizen support.
I trust the input we're receiving from thousands of Hampton residents and from other Hampton civic clubs will be used by the city as an indicator of citizen OPPOSITION to condos at Buckroe Beach.
I also trust Hampton citizens, this time, will be adequately notified about future meetings for the stated public input on the Bayfront Initiative.
I encourage all Hampton citizens who haven't already signed the petition to go to our website for a list of businesses where you can go to sign the petition to save the green space. Hampton residents under 18 are encouraged to contact us. You have a voice in this issue too. We will work with you on getting it heard.
In closing, Council, once again I request you not sell those city-owned lots at Buckroe Beach while Hampton citizens of today are in the process of letting you know their desires regarding that property which was purchased with taxpayer money...in other words, their property.
Thank you.
March 23, 2005
City Council Meeting
by Sandra Canepa
Mayor Kearney, City Council Members,
My name is Sandra Canepa, I live in Hampton, and my family has owned a cottage on N. 1st Street since the early 60’s.
I’m here to urge you to oppose the Bayfront Initiative in the Buckroe Master Plan as currently proposed by the Planning Department.
The public beach at Buckroe, while located in the Buckroe area of Hampton, belongs to all Hampton citizens, and the now empty lots adjacent to that public beach need to be developed for the enjoyment of our city.
There are three major problems with the Bayfront plan. If accepted, Hampton citizens will lose a large tract of green space, beautiful water views, and convenient parking for the public beach.
The Planning Department states their vision for the area, among other things, is to protect the public’s water views and beach access.
On the screen is their slide showing the proposed development of the empty lots adjacent to the Buckroe pavilion. As you see this planned development does nothing to protect the water views for the public. This development will protect only the water views of a very few who can afford to buy the front row of planned 3-story condos fronting the Bay on First Street.
Even the people buying the condo’s behind the front row in this rabbit warren of a development are not going to have a water view and forget about protecting any water view for the public.
The Planning Department also states their plan improves access to beach and parks, to include beach and park parking. They even have the nerve to say one weakness in the current situation is beach access when, in fact, the weakness is in their proposed plan.
Right now Hampton citizens pay to park all day in a parking lot across the street from the beach and the gazebo’s used for family and church reunions. Yet their plan for “improved access to beach and parks” removes that parking lot across from the beach and expects the public to find on-street parking throughout the Buckroe residential community. Are Buckroe’s streets to be littered with parking meters?
Under the Department’s plan, families with small children, strollers, coolers, beach chairs, grandparents, etc, will have to face the daunting decision of whether to grab the first parking space they see when entering the Buckroe area or miss that parking place in order to unload everything closer to the beach before driving around to look for another parking place.
I don’t think so. Clearly the Planning Department’s parking plan for Hampton’s public beach and resort area will be a logistical nightmare for Hampton citizens, and is ugly and insane.
At a Buckroe Civic Assoc Meeting on 8 March, Mr. O’Neil, Director of Hampton’s Planning Department, was asked if the Salt Ponds beach at the north end of First Street was public or private. He smiled and said that depended on whom you asked.
He went on to say the Salt Ponds beach was public and falls under the same regulations as the public beach in front of the Buckroe pavilion. Then he said, but since there is no pubic parking for easy access to that beach and no one wants to truck his or her gear for blocks down North First Street in order to use the beach, in essence the beach is private
Given the scenario being set up in the proposed plan for developing all of the land near the Buckroe pavilion, the same situation is going to arise.
The majority of the public in time, tired of fighting for parking places along residential side streets, will begin to stay away completely. This public beach then will, in effect, become another “private” beach for only beachfront residents, just as the public beach at the end of North First Street is, in Mr. O’Neil’s words, essentially private because of no parking or easy access.
Another serious problem with the plan is that the Planning Department claims their proposed improvements will gain 2.5 acres of additional neighborhood parks.
Hampton citizens currently have 10 acres of potential parkland in the now empty lots fronting the Bay but, as you see from the slide on the screen, the Planning Department plans to fill in all 10 acres of that vacant land with private condo’s and homes.
Therefore, in truth, their 2.5 acre spin on park space is actually a 7.5 acre loss of parkland for the Hampton public.
Furthermore, the 2.5 acres are broken up into small green spaces sitting as neighborhood parks. These neighborhood parks will not have public parking around them, and none are located anywhere close to the Bay for that “water view” the Planning Department claims it wants to protect.
For the above reasons, the plan proposed tonight fails all citizens of Hampton except for the very few who will be able to afford the proposed housing.
It takes away everything and gives nothing back to Hampton citizens in return, and
Contrary to what the Planning Department claims, the plan does absolutely nothing to protect Hampton’s dwindling green space, enhance the public’s beautiful water views, or improve beach access in the Buckroe area of the City, and I request you oppose the Bayfront initiative.
S. Canepa
April 13, 2005
City Council Meeting
by Sandra Canepa
Mayor Kearney, Vice Mayor Spencer, Council Members,
Hello Again.
My name is Sandra Canepa. I live in Hampton, and my family has owned a cottage at Buckroe Beach since the early 60’s.
For those at home tonight who might not have watched the last council meeting and the vote on the Buckroe Master Plan, I would like to review what happened and what was said. From my standpoint, the outcome was somewhat encouraging but Hampton citizens can’t stop this all-out effort to save the green space at Buckroe Beach until we know that land is officially designated as a city park.
(SLIDE 1) This slide shows the Planning Department’s Bayfront Initiative under the Buckroe Master Plan. A crowded mess of condo’s is planned for every now empty lot where the Buckroe Beach amusement park once stood. These empty lots of green space need to be turned into a city park and not one block of it built up with condo’s, homes or apts.
After Council heard everyone’s remarks and prior to their vote on whether or not to accept the Buckroe Master Plan, which included the Bayfront Initiative, these comments, in favor of green space, were made by three Hampton City Council Members.
(SLIDE 2) Mayor Kearney stated:
“I get into arguments, discussions, with people in Buckroe because I too think those first two blocks, and for those at home that would be where Bark Park is today as an example, should remain open as green space, and as long as I’m sitting here I will not vote for that to become apartments or condominiums. I promise you that because we do have to protect that green space.
“But we have to adopt the plan because this is a step in the right direction. Everybody’s alluded to the fact that there are portions they don’t like but to throw the baby out at this time is not the thing to do so I’m going to support the plan but hope we can all tweak it together…”
(SLIDE 3) Mr. Tignor stated:
“I’m going to support the plan but I’m not going to support the plan to the tune of agreeing to all of the consumption of the green space."
“I believe the mayor said we were going to tweak the plan.”
Major Kearney replied: “That’s right.”
Mr. Tignor then said:
“I guess I do want to go on record as saying I want to look at that green space again. Before we put concrete over all of it, let’s get together and talk about it a few more times.”
After listening to the public’s opposition for building on the green space, Mrs. Leary hesitated even voting for the Buckroe Master Plan that evening.
She inquired about the possibility of waiting up to 30 days in order to get more public input. However, when Mrs. Leary was assured by Mr. O’Neill, Director of the Planning Department, that each of the initiatives under the Plan would come back before Council as they go into more detail, her comment, shown on the screen, was,
(SLIDE 4) Mrs. Leary: “OK, with that understanding then, so that I know they (sic the initiatives) are going to have the opportunity to be heard again, I will go ahead and be supportive . . .but I do want you to go away knowing you’ve been heard and that we will fine tune it (sic the Plan) some more.”
Prior to calling for the vote on the Buckroe Master Plan, Mayor Kearney again stated, as shown on the screen:
(SLIDE 5 - Mayor Kearney) “Any investor will be looking at this area one block from the beach, and they’re going to be watering, as they are right now, from the mouth, but we have to protect it for the citizens of Hampton but that will be another vote on another day.”
Their remarks for saving the green space were encouraging; sadly, however, after hearing Mayor Kearney, Mrs. Leary and Mr. Tignor all say there is a need for that area to remain open as green space for the public, and they would support the Plan only because they could “tweak” and “fine tune” the Bayfront Initiative after they voted to support the Master Plan, Mr. Gilliland waded in with the comment shown on the screen.
(SLIDE 6 - Mr. Gilliland) “I know that we have developers and investors who are interested in this plan, and if we vote on it, if I were one of them and watched this meeting, and read the transcript, I wouldn’t know whether or not this Council had passed that plan or not…”
Mr. Gilliland went on to say he knew that was what the developer and investment communities were hearing and he could guarantee they were hearing ambiguity from Council on the Buckroe redevelopment. He further stated, "Council needed to demonstrate the political will to move the City forward." I’m here to tell you the citizens will is to save that precious green space for our city. Put it to a city-wide vote if you don’t believe me.
I don’t know whether Mr. Gilliland is a developer or an investor or if he works for one or the other, it certainly sounded like he does.
Unlike Mayor Kearney, Mr. Tignor and Mrs. Leary, Mr. Gilliland was not the least concerned about keeping Hampton’s precious little remaining green space on the Chesapeake Bay as a city park for the now and future generations of our city. That is a very sad position for any Hampton City Council Member to take, particularly when money from Hampton taxpayers bought those empty lots. They were not purchased with money from developers or investors, most of who are not from this area, and all of whom are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to take our money and run. I believe Mayor Kearney called it “watering at the mouth.”
For the above reasons, the voices of all Hampton citizens on this issue must be heard. I urge you to call or e-mail city council members, read about the effort and where to sign the petition at www.buckroebeach.org, and keep pushing to keep the Green Space Green at the former Buckroe Beach amusement park site.
Thank you Hampton residents and Council.
S. Canepa
April 27, 2005
City Council Meeting
by Sandra Canepa
Mayor Kearney, Vice Mayor Spencer, Council Members,
This is the third time I’ve spoken here to oppose the Bayfront Initiative of the 2005 Buckroe Master Plan.
Hampton citizens cannot stop their all-out effort to save the green space at the former Buckroe Beach amusement park site from developers. We cannot stop until the land is officially designated as a city park.
Tonight I’m going to talk about trust because after listening to you, Mayor Kearney and Terry O’Neill, Director of the Planning Department, at the last two Council meetings, it’s hard to trust anything either of you say about the city-owned remaining green space at Buckroe Beach.
I don’t mean any disrespect, but let me explain.
Mayor Kearney, you emphatically stated on 23 March that you would not vote for that land to become apartments or condominiums. You said we had to protect that green space. You mentioned how investors are watering from the mouth for that land but said we had to protect it for the citizens of Hampton and said that would be another vote on another day.
Shockingly, at the next council meeting, you completely reversed your stand on saving the green space. You said your research since the last meeting showed that in 1986, under the direction of the people involved at that time, the land was purchased for economic development, for housing. You even had the nerve to apologize for stating you wanted to save that green space. You said your thought about it on 23 March was wrong, and you’d have to protect the development.
Terry O’Neill stated the Buckroe Master Plan process had gone through several months of public hearings and meetings all over the Buckroe area involving the Buckroe Civic Association and citizens who have an interest in that area. Excuse me, but all Hampton taxpayers have an interest. Their money bought that property yet they were not officially informed of any public hearings on the issue.
Mr. O’Neill said he and his consultants continually marveled at the turnouts of 100 to 125 people at these public meetings.
One hundred people turning out for a public hearing on a subject of interest to all 147,000 Hampton taxpayers seemed extremely low so, in my research, I asked the Planning Department for a list of all meetings and dates held in Hampton regarding the Plan and a copy of all public notices to Hampton citizens which announced public hearings for the 2005 Buckroe Master Plan.
By Public Notices, I mean the black-bordered notices that appear almost daily in the Daily Press inviting Hampton citizens to upcoming public hearings on different subjects.
The Planning Department could not give me one public notice inviting Hampton citizens to the Buckroe Master Plan meetings. Not one, yet they held eight meetings beginning on 20 July 2004, and four of those meetings were with the Buckroe Civic Association. Why weren’t all 133 civic and professional organizations in Hampton invited to attend the meetings?
Not one public notice explained why there was an extremely low turnout at the meetings and why the more than 3000 Hampton residents, who have thus-far signed the petition to stop the development and keep the area as a city park, were not aware of the city’s plan to develop those lots.
Furthermore, you Council members are elected to represent all citizens today, not the citizens of 1986.
Yet, Mayor Kearney, you state you’re going to support a directive of their’s from 1986. That is moving this city backwards, not forward. Twenty years ago there were less people but more green space. Today there are more people but less green space yet today’s political chant seems to be “God forbid we leave a tree standing in Hampton!”
Help restore our trust in you, our elected officials, by not selling those city-owned lots out from under us while today’s Hampton citizens are in the process of letting you know their desires regarding their property at Buckroe Beach. After all, they were not invited to participate in the planning process no matter what the Planning Department tells you.
As you said, Mayor Kearney, protecting that green space for the citizens of Hampton will be another vote on another day. On their behalf, I request you please stand by your word on that.
Thank you.
June 8, 2005
City Council Meeting
by Sandra Canepa
Mayor Kearney, Vice Mayor Spencer, Council Members,
This is the sixth time I’ve spoken here to oppose the Bayfront Initiative of the 2005 Buckroe Master Plan.
The Bayfront Initiative is shown on the screen, and it’s on page 25 of the City’s Buckroe Beach Master Plan.
As you see, the City plans to put a crowded mess of expensive condominiums on the remaining 10-acres of open grassy lots now found at Buckroe Beach. The condominiums will cover and eliminate the now open green areas, to include the huge lot where beach goers currently park.
That parking lot, incidentally, had to be closed temporarily several times this past weekend when it was already completely filled with parked cars. Parked cars then covered adjoining lots; parked cars circled the bark park, they lined surrounding residential streets and completely filled the lot on Buckroe Avenue where the Moose Lodge once sat.
To “sell” the plan to Hampton citizens, the City keeps saying the Plan will provide more parking closer to the beach. That is such a play on words it’s sickening. Let me explain why their spin on parking is ugly and misleading.
Yes, the City is going to provide more parking closer to the beach but it will be at the expense of the little remaining green space shown. That green space is referred to as Buckroe Park, and it already contains the children’s playground, the gazebo, restrooms, band shell, and limited parking on either end.
There are currently 48 parking spaces on each end of Buckroe Park. The plan calls for adding 59 additional parking spaces at each end for a total of 214 parking spaces within Buckroe Park. It stands to reason parking areas cannot be increased within Buckroe Park without decreasing what little remaining green space we’ll have.
Additionally, the Bayfront Initiative calls for First Street to be extended through to Point Comfort Avenue and then a planned Entry Plaza and diagonal on-street parking along First Street will again decrease the little remaining green space within Buckroe Park
So, yes, the City is correct is saying they are going to provide more parking closer to the beach. They just neglect to point out clearly they are wrapping that parking around Buckroe Park at the expense of what little green space the Bayfront Initiative will leave.
What happens if a family or groups for picnics or reunions arrive and find the few additional parking spaces around Buckroe Park filled? Well, no problem, the Bayfront Initiative expects them to drive around Buckroe’s residential streets and find on-street parking.
The Bayfront Initiative increases on-street parking from an existing 34 spaces today to 304 spaces throughout the residential streets of Buckroe.
The Bayfront Initiative specifically mentions Tappan, Richmond, and Pilot Avenues as areas where 155 new parking spaces are being introduced for the public. How many residents along those streets were informed of this plan? I know for a fact that there was never any black-bordered public hearing notices put in the Daily Press about the Plan.
The City is under-estimating and insulting the intelligence of all Hampton citizens who oppose the City’s plan for the 10-acres of open green space at Buckroe Beach. The Bayfront Initiative stinks, and as thousands sign our petition to have those acres designated as a City Park for our now and future generations, the people are finding out just how bad it smells.
One more thing before I sit down. In a Daily Press story on 29 May about the battle against the condo’s, I picked up on what could be considered veiled threats by city officials to the opposing public.
Rhet Tigner’s remarks can be interpreted as an either/or, like “either the City sells those lots to developers or other projects within the Buckroe community aren’t going to get done.” And, Keith Cannady’s remark about the Plan giving City Council the right “to negotiate in private with developers,” sounds like a scare tactic to shut us up and shut us down. That isn’t going to happen.
There was also that “slap in the face” comment by Amy Hobbs. Amy said the Plan will “bring people who really care about the community.” What an ugly insulting remark to make, like current Buckroe community residents don’t care about their community. She’s way off the mark.
Thank you.
August 10, 2005
City Council Meeting
by Sandra Canepa
Mayor Kearney, Vice Mayor Spencer, Council Members,
With reference to Mayor Kearney’s remarks tonight about a forthcoming Buckroe Master Plan public presentation, what purpose will it serve for the Bayfront project, those 10-acres of green space where the Buckroe Amusement Park sat for generations?
How will the city determine the citizens desires regarding that Bayfront land after a Buckroe Master Plan infomercial as outlined by the mayor?
Furthermore, most Hampton residents already have their own Master Plans to worry about, and they will not be interested in attending a public presentation for a Master Plan that is not in “their own back yard” so to speak.
No, the Bayfront project needs and deserves its own separate public presentation. That land belongs to all Hampton taxpayers, and all 147,000 Hampton residents need to be adequately informed in any publicity that the presentations are going to be about the Bayfront project.
I say “presentations,” plural, because at the City Council Meeting on June 8, Council finally recognized that the Bayfront Initiative of the Buckroe Master Plan is a citywide project rather than a Buckroe Beach neighborhood initiative and agreed something needed to be done about it.
Council then determined they wanted a “light-bulb” meeting with the community to give everyone the opportunity to have input and a voice in what’s being done on the Bayfront project. Mayor Kearney even recommended having a whole series of presentations to ensure that every working-class citizen would have the opportunity to attend one.
When are we going to have those promised public presentations on the Bayfront project and not the Buckroe Master Plan?
The Buckroe Master Plan has not been the issue nor has it been the reason thousands of Hampton citizens are signing our petition to say NO to condos on the last remaining green space in Hampton on our Chesapeake Bay front.
Additionally, a separate presentation on the Bayfront Project will assure that the issues concerned citizens have brought before Council over the past five months concerning the needs and desires of thousands of Hampton residents to save those lots from condominiums are factually and actually presented?
It’s been over two months since Council said they were going to hold public presentations on this citywide Bayfront Project – and now you are talking about a public presentation on the Buckroe Master Plan.
Planning Department told you back in March they had held 19 public meetings already on that plan so why do you need another one?
Sadly you are attempting to mix apples and oranges once again by hiding the Bayfront Project from the public in announcing a Buckroe Master Plan presentation, and it’s wrong, ugly and unfair to all Hampton citizens as well as to the thousands of visitors and tourist who annually visit our unique and beautiful Buckroe Beach area.
As city leaders, Council, please be fair with all Hampton citizens by taking the Bayfront Project out from under the Buckroe Master Plan and give it the individual respect and attention it deserves and needs.
One other thing before I close.
Has city staff provided answers to the questions asked on June 8 by Councilwoman Leary regarding Buckroe Park’s green space acreage before and after the proposed additional parking?
Thank you.
September 14, 2005
City Council Meeting
by Sandra Canepa
Mayor Kearney, Vice Mayor Spencer, Council Members, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Burton
On behalf of everyone opposing condominiums on the former Buckroe Beach Amusement Park sites, I want to thank Council and the Planning Department for offering all Hampton citizens a first-time ever opportunity to attend a public presentation on the Buckroe Master Plan.
It has taken a long time to get to this point but we have arrived, and it is exciting because all citizens of Hampton will have the opportunity now to get involved and play an essential part in saving our precious little remaining green space on the Chesapeake Bay at Buckroe Beach from residential development.
The Planning Department stated they would conduct a major publicity campaign throughout Hampton to announce this public presentation but until then, and because they have less than 30 days to publicize this major event, such as with this city flyer, I am happy to report to the viewing audience that this city-wide Buckroe Master Plan public presentation will be held on Tuesday, October 11th, from 7-9 pm, in the new Hampton Roads Convention Center, Coliseum Drive. There will be plenty of room and parking for everyone so please mark your calendars to attend.
Every Hampton resident who opposes residential development on the Buckroe Bay Front, particularly the thousands who signed the petition to “Stop the Condos at Buckroe Beach” must attend this October 11th presentation. As this city flyer states, the presentation will offer an opportunity for everyone to hear, and to ask clarifying questions, about, among other things, the bay front initiative.
The bay front initiative is the city’s plan to put residential development on the former Buckroe Beach Amusement Park sites, and although it is placed under the Buckroe Master Plan, it is a city-wide project concerning all taxpayers and not just taxpayers in the Buckroe Beach area. Please encourage your family, friends, neighbors, church groups, civic associations and everyone wanting this land designated as a world-class city park for our now and future generations to attend this very important meeting, to listen, and to ask questions.
In preparing for the presentation, the Planning Department advised us that they wanted to give both sides of the bay front initiative and requested our collective point of view for saving the green space so it could be incorporated into the upcoming presentation.
We provided them with two briefs which can be found at www.buckroebeach.org.
One brief outlined values to Hampton for preserving and cultivating the Buckroe Beach waterfront and near waterfront lots into a permanent world-class green space park that would serve the greater good of all Hampton residents.
The other outlined negative aspects of having a crowded residential development on the Buckroe Beach waterfront and near waterfront lots that would serve only a few investors, a few developers and a few wealthy condominium owners.
Please print out the two briefs and bring them with you to the October 11th Buckroe Master Plan Presentation to listen and to ensure that both sides of the Buckroe Bay Front Initiative are presented fully.
I also want to thank everyone who stopped by our booth during Hampton Bay Days to pick up material on the upcoming presentation and to sign the “Stop the Condos at Buckroe Beach” petition. We garnered approximately 300 more signatures over that three-day period, and we hope to continue getting more signatures in the weeks’ ahead.
See you on October 11th.
Thank you.
February 22, 2006
City Council Meeting
by Sandra Canepa
Mayor Kearney, Vice Mayor Spencer, Council Members, Mr. Wallace, Ms. Hudson
Good Evening……actually, it is more than just a good evening, it is a great evening, and hopefully there will be a lot more to come with regard to saving Lots B, the Bay Front Initiative, for the public’s continued use, fun and enjoyment.
Councilman Gilliland’s proposal to Council yesterday to resurrect the planning process for the Bay Front Initiative was absolutely wonderful news for us Green Space Ladies and for the thousands of Hampton residents who have been voicing their concern this past year over Lots B possibly being taken away from them and sold for residential development..
Councilman Gilliland’s proposal was followed by Councilman Sapp’s interesting way of telling a somewhat personal story and yet tying it into the Buckroe Bay Front issue perfectly.
I know Council heard the story yesterday, and I cannot be as entertaining as Mr. Sapp, but I want to try to give the viewing audience the gist and importance of his story.
Mr. Sapp mentioned that although he had not been in this area as long as many, he can fully appreciate the value of protecting something’s history. He went on to tell how he and his wife purchased an old home on a beautiful lot in Hampton, which they first considered tearing down in order to build a new home on the lot. Somehow, however, they decided to try and look into the home’s history, and it was an eye-opener. As a result of their research and their desire to save that history, they renovated the older home instead.
Councilman Sapp then went on to say he learned from that experience that one should never rush into destroying history until they have done their background research to ensure they protect those things that are worth protecting. He mentioned how he has learned over the past year that Buckroe speaks to the history of Hampton. He even said he would like to see part of the Lot B next to Todds Cottages devoted to depicting Buckroe’s history. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
In the meantime, we are here tonight to express our great appreciation and thanks to Council for requesting Mr. Wallace move on Councilman Gilliland’s proposal to start the planning process over on Lots B, the Bay Front Initiative.
We know we are not out of the woods yet. We are aware there are still forces working for residential development of Lots B.
But, for the first time in a year you have given us the hope that this battle can still be won and that Lots B can become a world-class city park for Hampton’s now and future generations.
By your decision yesterday you have shown you are listening to the voices of Hampton residents, and we will continue to give you more voices, because we are continuing the petition drive for more and more signatures to say “NO” to residential development on Lots B.
As a token of our gratitude tonight, and to help keep you focused on staying on course to save our Buckroe Bay Front for continued public use, you each have before you a little ornament filled with sand and small shells collected from our wonderful Buckroe Beach.
Please shake it every once in a while if you feel the urge to stray away from us and toward a developer or two. Hopefully it will bring things back into focus and center your thoughts once again on protecting the very thing that is worth protecting for our now and future generations.
Thank all of you again, particularly Councilman Gilliland.
January 11, 2006
City Council Meeting
by Sandra Canepa
Mayor Kearney, Vice Mayor Spencer, Council Members, Mr. Wallace, Ms. Hudson
In October you voted not to extend North First Street through to Point Comfort Avenue.
Your decision was absolutely correct, and a big win for Hampton taxpayers from both a financial and a practical point of view.
Your vote in October to deny the First Street extension saves Hampton taxpayers, as Trish pointed out, approximately $300,000. You also saved a wonderful open area for the public to continue to enjoy until, we thought, the fate of Lots B, the Bayfront Initiative, is determined.
However, tonight for some strange reason, you plan to take another vote on the possibility of extending North First Street.
Why?
Trish outlined an extension of First Street at this time is absolutely senseless for Hampton taxpayers. Developers, not taxpayers, should put in any extension if they are going to get Lots B.
On the other hand, if Lots B are saved by Council, or by a citywide vote, for continued public use, then what professional park planner will want traffic going through the park?
Trish, however, did not point out a couple of things I heard in many social gatherings over the holidays.
I was reminded, when Resort Blvd did go through to Point Comfort Ave in my younger years, just how much fun friends and I had “cruising” up and down Resort Blvd to see who was there and to be seen. We had a blast.
In all honesty, because young people cruised the Resort Blvd “strip” then, that is probably one reason that street was closed to traffic.
Virginia Beach has to mount cameras and give tickets to try and stop the cruising up and down Atlantic Avenue. Hampton will have the same problem of “cruising” a beachfront road that it had in the 50’s and 60’s if they extend North First Street. Virginia Beach and Myrtle Beach fight the issue of beachfront cruising to this very day.
Another point of discussion over the holidays was the comment, “What in the world does Fort Monroe have to do with Buckroe Beach?”
Buckroe Beach and Lots B have been like the 4th of July and mother’s apple pie to Hampton residents for generations. It is our “home”, the place where everyone has gathered for over 100 years for fun, food, entertainment, peace, quiet, company, etc. You name it, everyone has wonderful stories and memories associated with Buckroe Beach and the Amusement Park. It is the “home” where Hampton residents return year in and year out now, today bringing their children, grandchildren, guests and visitors.
But Fort Monroe, although beautiful and loved by its neighboring communities, has never been a gathering place, a “home” in that sense, for the vast majority of Hampton residents. Furthermore, we do not know, and will not know for years to come, if it will ever belong to Hampton.
However, if Fort Monroe does come into our hands, Council should recognize that any planning for the development of Fort Monroe will go much more smoothly for Hampton leadership if Hampton citizens get to keep Lots B, the Bayfront Initiative, their ancestral “home” for what it has been used for in the past, an open wonderful place of gathering for our past generations, and now for us and our future generations.
If that happens, then, when Hampton starts planning for the development of Fort Monroe, I believe Hampton residents will not fight too much for beach and park public space on Fort Monroe because they will still have their wonderful centuries–old gathering place, Buckroe Beach and a world-class Chesapeake Bay Front Park in place of the former Buckroe Amusement Park.
Thank you.
December 14, 2005
City Council Meeting
by Sandra Canepa
Mayor Kearney, Vice Mayor Spencer, Council, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Burton.
At the November City Council Meeting charges were made that we Green Space Ladies would not compromise on the Bayfront Initiative of the Buckroe Master Plan and that it had to be “our way” or “no way.” In other words we were not willing to discuss a tradeoff with the city in exchange for residential development on one or more of those lots.
Well, those charges, for me anyway, were accurate, but I need to explain myself.
The first reason I have not talked about “a compromise” for Lots B is because our petition offers Hampton residents the opportunity to choose a 10-acre “Park” over residential development on Lots B, and I do not believe it is up to me, the Green Space Ladies, or any other small neighborhood group, to say approximately 11,000 petitioners are willing to accept half a park, or one-third a park, in place of what they are saying by signing the petition.
My second reason for not discussing any compromise with the city is because every day or two since last January it has been my duty as one of the Green Space Ladies to stop in at one, or more, of the over 50 businesses, churches, or day-care centers in Hampton who carry, or have carried, our petition to save all three B Lots from residential development.
And, I can tell you for a fact that in these last eleven months of my traversing throughout Hampton, hundreds of people have made it a point to approach or stop me and thank me for doing what we "Green Space Ladies" are doing for them.
Restaurant customers, of all ages, sex, and race, hear me thanking the business owners or they see me gathering up the signed pages, and they will call out to me, or reach out to stop me as I turn to leave, just to express their gratitude for what we are doing, ask questions, offer support, or even to say they are keeping us in their prayers.
I would not, could not, continue in my struggle to do what is right for all Hampton residents if I did not stand up for what the petition reads and for what Hampton residents are signing. I do not betray the trust of my family and friends, and I would never, behind their backs, betray the trust of Hampton citizens by ever discussing a compromise with anyone who wishes to support developers and investors at the expense of all Hampton citizens.
I could not face our Hampton citizens on a daily basis if I were discussing any type of compromise behind closed doors. I could not sleep nights either if I were trying to do something to Hampton residents that I knew they did not want or need or was not in their best interests.
The third mayor reason I do not discuss compromising Lots B for a smaller park or for residential housing, is that Hampton citizens over the years have already been compromised to death when it comes to having to give up blocks of easy access and beautiful views of our magnificent Chesapeake Bay waterfront.
We had both Buckroe and Bay Shore beaches for the public before integration in the 60’s; however, once the black and white populations in Hampton could frequent both beaches, what happens, Hampton residents had to compromise and give up one of those beaches, the Bay Shore beach, to private developers.
Then Hampton families and businessmen along a section of North First Street had to give up their homes and businesses and, what happens, their property is sold to private developers for Morning View and Cantamar, and once again the compromise causes Hampton residents to lose more blocks of easy access and wonderful views of the Chesapeake Bay.
Then came Grandview and the Salt Ponds…..property again sold to private developers, and again, compromising the public’s wonderful views and easy access to the Chesapeake Bay. Furthermore, the Salt Ponds public beach is now essentially a “private beach” for the few who can afford the homes facing that public beach.
The very same thing that will happen if Lots B, Hampton’s last three blocks of providing easy access and beautiful views of the Chesapeake Bay, are sold to private developers.
For all the above reasons, I needed to clarify the reasons why I plead guilty for not discussing a compromise for the Bayfront Initiative. Furthermore, I do not talk about a compromise just because it is not “my way” or “our way.”
No, I do it because it is “their way”, the way that has been expressed by approximately 11,000 petitioners, thus far, who want Lots B for a professionally designed world-class city park
Thank you.
November 9, 2005
City Council Meeting
by Sandra Canepa
Mayor Kearney, Vice Mayor Spencer, Council Members, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Burton
I have here a copy of the Planning Department’s proposed amendment to the Buckroe Master Plan, specifically their proposal for the Bayfront Initiative under that plan. As most of you know, the Bayfront Initiative is the former Buckroe Beach Amusement Park sites…shown as Lots B on the slide and on our website www.buckroebeach.org.
This proposed amendment of the Planning Department was made public yesterday, and can also be found on our website. The Planning Department has submitted it for Planning Commission’s consideration prior to a vote on it at a public hearing on November 14.
As background, the viewing audience may recall that on September 14, City Council requested the Planning Department take a “second look” at the recommendations in the adopted Buckroe Master Plan. That also meant the Planning Department was to take a “second look” at the Bayfront Initiative of the plan.
The Bayfront Initiative, you may also recall, recommended the development of high-density, high cost condominiums on the former Buckroe Beach Amusement Park site, or Lots B on the slide.
In September, when Council requested the “second look” at the Bayfront Initiative, over 8,000 Hampton residents had already signed the petition to say “NO” to condos on Lots B and “YES” to having those lots designated as a city park for our now and future generations.
Since September, however, the number of Hampton residents that have signed the petition to stop the condos on their property, those B Lots, has grown considerably,, and Phyllis Flanders will update you on the petition drive and signatures in a few minutes.
However, even with thousands of Hampton residents saying NO to putting high cost residential development on this property owed by all Hampton residents, this report, this “second look” from the Planning Department continues to recommend high cost, high density residential development on the former Buckroe Beach Amusement Park sites. (Again. Lots B on the screen.).
Do you know what they base this absurd decision of theirs on, it is based entirely on the possibility that Hampton MAY get Fort Monroe. They say this in several paragraphs of their report. For instance in one place they say, “The recent decision to close Fort Monroe MAY PROVIDE additional opportunities to leverage the value of open space…”, and again, I quote, “This area of Fort Monroe MAY be appropriate for re-use as open space……”
We all know we DO NOT know whether or not Hampton is going to get Fort Monroe. We have some ideas, we have some hopes, but we still have nothing to take to any bank, and we will not get anything to take to a bank for years to come, if it comes.
Right now, however, and for years to come, our Hampton City Council has only the Bayfront Initiative to offer to its citizens for open space amenities.
Right now, we have it, it is bought and paid for, and it belongs to all Hampton residents, who are saying by way of the petition, by phone calls, by personal conversations with Council members, by e-mails, by Exit Surveys from the Oct 11 public presentation on the Buckroe Master Plan, they DO NOT want residential development on the former Buckroe Beach Amusement Park sites.
Yet with all of this citizen opposition to residential development on those lots, the Planning Department is still trying to stick it to Hampton citizens by requesting the Planning Commission, and ultimately City Council, approve development on the bayfront blocks.
They say, basically, because of THE POTENTIAL of getting Fort Monroe, residential development on the Buckroe Beach bayfront lots will not preclude THE POTENTIAL future of green space because we MAY have Fort Monroe. Again, not that we have Fort Monroe but we MAY get it.
How nonsensical is that reasoning?
It’s like holding a million dollars in cash in your hands, and it blows away in the wind when you reach to buy a multi-million dollar lottery ticket. If your lottery ticket doesn’t win, you end up with absolutely nothing.
If the Planning Commission on November 14th, and then Hampton City Council, approves this proposed recommendation that Lots B be developed with condominiums or housing because of the “potential” of “maybe” getting Fort Monroe, and if Hampton doesn’t get Fort Monroe, then, like the million dollars and lottery ticket, Hampton residents will end up with absolutely nothing of our last remaining open areas at Buckroe Beach.
I urgently request the Planning Commission and Council direct the Planning Department to return to their drawing board and look at another recommendation for Initiative 1, The Bayfront, under their proposed amendment to the Buckroe Master Plan.
I recommend they continue to move forward with Initiatives 2 through 4 under their proposed amendment but that they recommend Initiative 1, the Bayfront, be removed from consideration by the Planning Department at this time.
I suggest they recognize that Initiative 1, The Bayfront, is a city-wide issue. Those 10-acres, along with the current Buckroe Park and the public beach, while located in the Buckroe area of Hampton, belong to all Hampton citizens and need to be addressed separately from the Buckroe Master Plan.
The Bayfront Initiative needs its own Steering Committee comprised of citizens and leaders from throughout the City of Hamton to sit down and work on a plan for those lots that will satisfy the vast majority of Hampton residents.
Furthermore, and to be fair, any Steering Committee tasked with deciding the fate of Lots B should represent Hampton’s population. In other words 50% of a newly formed Steering Committee for the Bayfront Initiative should be white, 45% of its members should be black, and 5% should be Asian and Hispanic.
There were 18 members of the Buckroe Master Plan Steering Committee who voted to take 10-acres of beautiful bayfront property away from all 147,000 Hampton citizens
How many of those 18 members on the original Steering Committee for those lots were black, Asian or Hispanic citizens of Hampton?
For all of the above reasons, this proposed “second look” amendment by the Planning Department for the Bayfront Initiative still stinks, is ugly and is still extremely unfair to all Hampton residents and taxpayers.
That beautiful gateway to the Chesapeake Bay was bought, paid for, and belongs to all 147,000 Hampton citizens, and I urge the Planning Commission and City Council to listen to what Hampton citizens, the majority of which are voters, are saying they want on our Buckroe Beach Bayfront lots.
Thank you.
June 14, 2006
City Council Meeting
by Sandra Canepa
Mayor Kearney, Vice Mayor Spencer, Council, Mr. Wallace, Ms. Hudson.
I am here to urge you to oppose approving Phase II of the Buckroe Master Plan until
you have given the new Planning Team for the Bay Front Initiative an opportunity to meet and come up with
new visions and new options for Lots B.
Phase II, like the extension of First Street and its on-street parking, was only put into the Buckroe Master Plan in order to make more parking available within Buckroe Park and on the streets throughout Buckroe because high-density, high-cost residential housing was planned for Lots B. City Staff knew the proposed residential
housing would eliminate the parking currently located on Lots B and looked around desperately for other Beach-front parking for the public, hoping to make the Bay Front Initiaive of private residential housing on Lots B more acceptable to everyone.
For this reason, Phase II tonight, just as should have been done for the First Street Extension, has no business being approved until the new Planning Team for Lots B has had an opportunity to meet and come up with new options for Lots B...and new visions for that property is the whole premise for Council approving a new planning process back in February.
It may very well be the team will recommend the current large Lot B will remain the primary parking lot for the public, and for this reason, please do not take steps tonight to approve the spread of any more cement cancer over Hampton's little remaining green space running along our Bay Front. The First Street Extension has already destroyed more green space than the public deserved to lose, and increasing the size of the parking lots at each end of Buckroe Park will continue to destroy the little remaining green space we have at Buckroe. It is totally unnecessary to do this at this time.
I urge Council to not approve Phase II of the Buckroe Master Plan until you give the Bay Front Initiative Planning Team the opportunity to meet and come up with other options for Lots B which I am sure will include enough public parking for our public beach without allowing the spread of more cement over Buckroe’s green space – enough is enough already.
If you approve Phase II tonight, like when you approved the First Street Extension, it is like sending a subtle message to 12,000 petitioners that you are just playing the public along and that you are still being moved by staff to set up all the right plays in order to put residential housing on Lots B. Council stopped the move to rezone one of Lots B to residential housing;
Why in the world would Council approve smaller parts of any plan like Phase II when the main plan itself is being taken back through a new planning process per your own wishes.
Earlier this year Council stopped the move to rezone one of Lots B to residential housing because the fate of Lots B was still up in the air.
For this reason, I request you disapprove Phase II tonight and give the new planning process and the new planning team, and the waiting and listening public, the respect they deserve regarding the fate of Lots B and all parts related to it.
Thank you.
August 9, 2006
City Council Meeting
by Sandra Canepa
Mayor Kearney, Vice Randy Gilliland, Council, Mr. Wallace, Ms. Hudson.
On behalf of the Green Space Ladies, Trish Ferraro, Cecile Trevathan and myself, as well as for over 60 Hampton business owners and 12,000 petitioners, all of whom displayed or signed our petition to Stop the Condos at Buckroe Beach, I want to thank Mr. Wallace and each member of Council for making possible the great news reported by Kimball Payne in today’s Daily Press.
For anyone who may not have read today’s paper, please know Hampton has hired LaQuatra Bonci, a Pittsburgh-based firm that specializes in designing parks, to develop different options for Buckroe Beach. This action by our Hampton leadership leads us to believe Council and Mr. Wallace have gained an understanding throughout these last two years of where thousands of Hampton residents want to go with Buckroe’s Bay Front Initiative, particularly Lots B.
I also want to say we are especially impressed with LaQuatra Bonci’s profile as given on their website.
I will not read their entire profile tonight. It is suffice to say their website states they strive to create landscapes that inspire people, create memories, and connect to nature. Their practice has focused on a variety of project types, including public gathering places, parks, public green spaces, and public open spaces.
They further state they commit themselves to the integration of sound ecological and stewardship design principles to make best use of the land, which, in their own words, is our most precious natural resource.
LaQuatra Bonci further advises their work involves facilitating a consensus building process with the community and stakeholders to define the program and mission of the property.
That is our request now of Council. Because Hampton residents are the community and the major stakeholders in their property known as the Bay Front Initiative, we request you ensure LaQuatra Bonci facilitates the same consensus building process for the Bay Front Initiative as they do for all their other projects.
Just as the City of Hampton recently permitted everyone interested in the fate of Fort Monroe to visit the convention center while the hired consulting team worked on developing options for the possible reuse of Fort Monroe should it come into the hands of the City of Hampton, we request you, our City Leadership, ensure that the Green Space Ladies and interested Hampton residents are invited from the get-go to meet LaQuatra Bonci representatives to help to define the program and mission of the property, and ensure that we are also invited to view, comment and add input on all options being considered for the Bay Front Initiative including Lots B prior to the development by December of three different options for that property.
According to Mr. Wallace’s letter of 28 July which can be read on our website at www.buckroebeach.org, LaQuatra Bonci is going to start generating options for the Bay Front Initiative in the September-October time frame which is almost upon us. Therefore, we request the Green Space Ladies and Hampton residents receive notice soon when they will be introduced to LaQuatra Bonci’s representatives and when we will be allowed to view and comment on some of their early options
Our Buckroe Bay Front issue is not unlike the Fort Monroe issue, and by that I mean Buckroe is as much of a “national” treasure to generations of Hampton residents as Fort Monroe is a “national” treasure to generations of American.
Council and Mr. Wallace, thank you again for creating the news reported in today’s Daily Press, and thank you for ensuring that the developing of all options prior to the selection of three for the Buckroe Bay Front Issue will be handled by LaQuatra Bonci just as was the developing of all options handled for the Fort Monroe issue.
Thank you.
February 28, 2007
City Council Meeting
by Sandra Canepa
Mayor Kearney, Vice Randy Gilliland, Council, Mr. Wallace, Ms. Hudson,
Good Evening.
Council has received emails about what I am going to say but I want my comments on record for the viewing public.
I applaud Council for considering the opportunities everything the new Crossroads project is expected to do for Hampton.
A story in the Daily Press on 15 February stated that Crossroads also is going to be an attempt to make Hampton a destination....." , and Mr. Wallace is quoted as saying, with Crossroads, Hampton is "…. looking for people to come in,…”
Another story on 16 February indicated Crossroads is going to need every ounce of help, vision and imagination a city government can commit in order to vie with the other entertainment venues in this area because, with seven, Hampton Roads is thought to have more live-performance theaters per capita than any market in the country.
Considering all the reports, how much sense then does it make not to develop Buckroe’s Lots B into a unique and spectacular Bay front park to market for the visitors Hampton wants to attract to the Branson-like shows planned for the Crossroads project?
How much sense does it make for Council on one hand to go into a deal in "an attempt" to make Hampton a destination spot and to try to create something to bring people into our city when on the other hand Council just voted to cut up, sell off and destroy a destination spot that has brought thousands of people and thousands of dollars in revenue into our city.
Buckroe Beach and Lots B have been that mayor destination and revenue-attracting spot for generations…….and that wonderfully special piece of waterfront can be developed into something even more spectacular and welcoming for our visitors if Council only gives it the opportunity to succeed as a public city Bay front park.
Just as the city is using taxpayer money to invest in Crossroads, taxpayer money also should be used for the city park that thousands of Hampton citizens and taxpayers have been requesting for two years, particularly now that it is reported Hampton is going to need more to offer audiences in order for the Crossroads entertainment complex to be competitive and a success.
Once the contracts are signed, the developers are not going to be the ones concerned about attracting thousands of visitors and their money to Crossroads in the years ahead. That job is going to fall squarely on the shoulders of city staff, specifically the Hampton Convention and Visitor Bureau.
Has anyone asked them about the value difference to this city of promoting a unique Bay front city park, with ample off-street public parking, over promoting more housing near a beach without enough parking for the residents much less any visitors?
Has anyone asked them about the untold value a professionally designed public city park on Lots B will have in helping them continue to attract thousands to Hampton’s other attractions as well as to the Crossroads project discussed tonight?
For that matter, has anyone asked Hampton’s professional businessmen, realtors and developers about the value of having a magnificent Bay front park in Buckroe to tout as they all attempt to market the mass amount of new residential housing planned throughout Hampton and in competition with housing in neighboring cities?
Thank you for reconsidering Council’s earlier action on Lots B considering Hampton’s goal today to make the Crossroads project a roaring success.
September 26, 2007
City Council Meeting
by Sandra Canepa
Mayor Kearney, Vice Randy Gilliland, Council, Mr. Wallace, Ms. Hudson,
Good Evening.
Please put the amendment’s boundary district slide back up on the screen.
Because the amendment’s term “overlay zoning” initially was confusing to me before it was explained at the last Planning Commission meeting, I would like to help the viewing audience and maybe some council members understand this proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment as it applies to Buckroe’s Lots B that fall within that boundary district.
As pointed out, each of the properties within that boundary district currently has its own base zoning.
For instance the base zoning for the two portions of Lots B facing North lst Street is Special Public Interest-Buckroe, and that zoning restricts their use to open space with no permanent improvements placed on the property as part of any primary or accessory use.
And the base zoning for the Lot B fronting Mallory is Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) and Limited Commercial (C-2) neither of which calls for residential housing.
Our confusion with the amendment came when it was explained to the Planning Commissioners that this SPI-Buckroe Bayfront District is an overlay zone that will not change the existing base zoning of the properties but is zoning that will run parallel with the existing base zoning of the properties.
Parallel zoning was exlained as allowing the properties within the boundary district to be used as permitted by their base zoning, or they also can be used to build residential homes as described by the amendment’s overlay zoning.
To us that appeared Buckroe’s Lots B were falling under two separate and opposing zoning uses…..one allowing only open space and light commercial on Lots B and the other one allowing residential housing on them.
This made no sense whatsoever so we questioned it at the Planning Commission meeting on September 6.
Thankfully Mr. O’Neill addressed our concerns and answered our questions for which I am deeply appreciative.
Mr. O’Neill’s answers can be viewed on the city’s website, and on the video you will hear Mr. O’Neill say, basically, that before the city, or any developer, can put houses on the Lots B located within the Boundary District; those lots will have to go through a rezoning process.
In other words, two public hearings before Council will be required before the Lots B in the boundary district can be rezoned from their current base zonings of open park space and light commercial use to residential use.
Council’s approval tonight of the overlay zoning amendment is only to approve a standard for any homes that would go on Lots B if they are rezoned in the future for residential use.
But again, it is important to know before Lots B can be rezoned from their current base zoning, two public hearings are required to provide citizens with a degree of security for what would go on them in the future, if anything.
I’ll close now with a thank you to our supporters who continue to monitor www.buckroebeach.org for the latest news about Buckroe’s Lots B. As of 6 o’clock tonight the site had 23,600 hits.
