Ray Williams received a letter from Virginia Department of Transportation informing him that the agency would be assessing his Hampton home — taking soil samples, locating power lines and other routine work.
The December 2015 letter didn’t say why, but Williams didn’t think too much of it — until nearly a year later when he got a call from a Daily Press reporter asking him how he felt about his property being flagged for potential relocation to make way for I-664 widening.
“I had no idea about that,” Williams said.
It was a similar reaction that took place as the Daily Press spoke to property owners included on a VDOT list of properties that would be partially acquired or relocated for a proposed I-64 and I-664 widening as part of the water-crossing project.
Hampton Roads residents and an eminent domain expert leveled criticism at VDOT for its minimal notification to home and business owners that the state agency may be acquiring their property to widen the region’s congested interstates.
In a draft document, VDOT flagged 18 Peninsula homes and businesses that could be relocated under the water-crossing model that had initially been strongly favored by regional leaders and the public. The potential Peninsula relocations included 10 in the Hampton Azalea Garden neighborhood, four in Hampton’s Copeland Industrial Park, a home on Ellington Avenue, two Newport News Southeast Community businesses and one Southeast Community home.
The agency also flagged nine homes in the Ocean View section of Norfolk that could be relocated under the scaled-down model that’s now moving forward.
VDOT sent letters to the property owners in late 2015 about potential soil testing and field work on their land, but never notified the owners that their properties were on the list for possible government takeover under some of the water-crossing models on the table. The lack of notification made it nearly impossible for those property owners to weigh in on the four options before regional leaders chose one last week.
That move, toward a model that widens I-64, but not I-664, spared the 18 Peninsula properties from relocation — for now.
Among them, Kitty and Randy Dale have owned their Hampton home in the Azalea Garden neighborhood since 1961.
Despite the apparent reprieve, the Dales still assert that they should have been told their property could have been acquired.
“I do not understand why they didn’t tell us as soon as they knew it was a possibility,” said Kitty Dale, 78, as she stood in her living room, in the middle of a semicircle of carefully placed antique furniture. “I would hate to leave here.”
While the model that would have relocated the Dales, Williams, and 16 others is likely on hold until after 2040, the scaled-down plan that is moving forward — widening of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel and I-64 — could relocate nine Ocean View homeowners who also have not been notified.
That model, which the Commonwealth Transportation Board is expected to approve in December, would have lesser impacts on 75 properties in the region, including some on the Peninsula, that would have a portion of their property acquired.
After the CTB vote, VDOT will notify property owners, VDOT spokeswoman Paula Miller said.
Linda Hill, who grew up in her Norfolk home on Mason Creek Road, is set to have 0.1 of her 0.16 acres acquired by VDOT under the model moving forward, according to a VDOT spreadsheet, she learned from the Daily Press. Like dozens of others, the widened I-64 would likely move the freeway closer to her home, encroaching on her property.
“When were they going to let us know?” Hill, 67, asked. “I think they should’ve told us sooner. If they were considering taking any of our property at all, even just a little bit, they need to come and explain it to us.”
Hill actually wants VDOT to buy her property from her and relocate her, since she worries the closer interstate will affect her property value. That’s not in the plans, as of now, however.
For relocations and property acquisitions, VDOT would pay the owner fair market value for the property and in some cases provide relocation assistance, according to a VDOT document.
VDOT says it is following state law
Preliminary engineering is not scheduled to start until July 2017, said Miller. Construction would not begin for at least another two years from now, VDOT project manager Scott Smizik has said.
The list of relocations and property impacts is not final, but considered “planning level,” Miller said.
“Actual property impacts will not be realized until the (National Environmental Policy Act) process is complete, through the issuance of a Record of Decision from (Federal Highway Administration), and detailed designs are complete,” Miller said. “These detailed designs will inform final right of way and relocation data.”
Henry “Hank” Howell III, a Virginia eminent domain attorney, said VDOT appears to have followed what the code requires, but should have notified the property owners of the potential relocations as soon as possible, instead of waiting for a finalized list after an alternative was already selected.
“The more information the sooner you give the property owners, the better,” Howell said. “It’s a matter of democracy, a matter of notice to stakeholders, to have them participate in the decision-making process so they know they’ve been heard.”
On Sept. 30, 2015, VDOT sent its first mailing to property owners whose properties would be impacted, followed by a second mailing on Dec. 28, Smizik said.
The mailing had a subject line of “Hampton Roads Crossing Study,” but neither included the information that the properties were on a list of potential relocations for the proposed I-664 and I-64 widening.
The December mailing to properties on the list read: “This letter of intent to enter your property is being sent to you pursuant to Section 33.2-1011 of the Code of Virginia. VDOT is in the early stages of developing the captioned project and will soon be working in your neighborhood.”
That state code section is under the chapter on eminent domain — something the recipient would have to look up themselves. It reads: “Right to enter on land to ascertain its suitability for highway and other transportation purposes; damages resulting from such entry.”
The Dec. 28 letter goes on to say that VDOT crews may enter the property to locate property lines and utilities, take photos, talk to property owners, conduct soil testing and other tasks between Jan. 1 and March 31.
“This investigative work does not indicate that improvements across your property are imminent or that a decision on an improvement has been made,” the letter said. “This work is simply for the purpose of gathering data for the decision making process. Please watch for notices of public meetings or willingness to hold a meeting about this project. In the event that the transportation improvement does affect your property, a VDOT representative will personally contact you.”
The letter makes no mention for why the work was being done: Because the property is on the list for potential acquisition from construction, which could require the homeowners to leave their properties.
The Dales don’t remember getting either of those mailings. Williams remembers getting them, but had no idea VDOT was considering moving his home. He didn’t see if the crews ever came by, he said.
“The mailings didn’t say I could be relocated,” said Williams, a shipyard employee who lives with his wife in the house he’s owned for three years. “Why not? I think that’s shady.”
Seven months after the December mailing, in the last week of July, VDOT sent the property owners postcards inviting them to two public hearing dates in September — one in Norfolk and one in Hampton — where something called the “Hampton Roads Crossing Study Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)” would be discussed.
These were not the first public hearings held about the project, Miller noted.
Williams remembers getting that postcard, but didn’t connect the dots with the mailing he had gotten seven months earlier. Still unaware he could be relocated under two of the models, he did not attend.
It would be difficult for most property owners not familiar with the details of the project to make that connection, Howell said. In fact, after getting the December mailing and hearing nothing since, they may think the project referenced in the generic public hearing notice wouldn’t affect their properties, he said.
“The owners may see that, but they don’t know if they’re going to be subject to a condemnation, so that’s the missing information that would’ve gone to them so they can be sure to show up at the public hearings,” said Howell, who’s worked as an eminent domain attorney across the state for the last 12 years.
A spreadsheet of addresses, listing how much acreage would be acquired and which ones were relocations, was included in that study (the SEIS). That document was posted to a VDOT’s website and released to the public in July — one of 37 links about the project, comprising hundreds of pages.
None of the property owners who spoke to the Daily Press for this story had any idea the spreadsheet, which listed their addresses and potential acreage acquisitions, existed.
Clift can be reached by phone at 757-247-7870.
Potential relocations for water-crossing project if Alternatives C, D or Mayor Price’s model were chosen
Newport News
13 acres of industrial at 801 Terminal Ave. — Blue Night Energy Partners (partial relocation)
0.1 acre of residential at 4008 Orcutt Ave.
0.8 acre of industrial at 3600 Jefferson Ave.
0.9 acre of commercial at 3500 Jefferson Ave. — King’s Pizza Palace
Hampton
1.1 acre of commercial at 400 Copeland Drive
0.3 acre of residential at 24 Braemar Drive
0.3 acre of residential at 66 Azalea Drive
0.4 acre of residential at 68 Azalea Drive
1.8 acre of industrial at 401 Industry Drive
0.3 acre of residential at 27 Braemar Drive
1.3 acre of industrial at 2351 52nd St. — Melvin Peters Cabinet Shop
0.3 acre of residential at 6 Dundee Road
0.3 acre of open space at 24 Balmoral Drive
0.3 acre of residential at 9 Keswick Lane
0.3 acre of residential at 25 Balmoral Drive
0.3 acre of residential at 64 Azalea Drive
0.3 acre of open space at 10 Keswick Lane
1.7 acre of industrial at 400 Rotary St.
0.1 acre of residential at 705 Ellington Ave.
Potential relocations under Alternative A, which is moving forward
Norfolk
0.13 acre of residential at 1449 Bayville St.
0.23 acre of residential at 1459 Bayville St.
0.24 acre of residential at 1501 Bayville St.
0.11 acre of residential at 1445 Bayville St.
0.18 acre of residential at 1455 Bayville St.
0.08 acre of residential at 1439 Bayville St.
0.11 acre of residential at 1435 Bayville St.
0.1 acre of residential at 1441 Bayville St.
1.3 acres of residential at 158 W. Chester St.
Source: Virginia Department of Transportation’s Draft HRCS SEIS
