Portsmouth’s second attempt at developing storage facility on once-contaminated superfund site fails with 4-3 vote

Portsmouth City Council members on Tuesday rejected a second attempt to construct a storage facility on Effingham Street that would have amounted to a $13 million investment.

Attorney Don Scott, on behalf of SAFStor Real Estate Co., requested a rezoning at 0 Effingham St. for a 103,350-square-foot storage facility with nearly 800 units.

The Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority owns the 5-acre property and has tried to sell it for three decades. Due to past lead contamination, it’s an Environmental Protection Agency superfund site, which restricts how the land can be used.

The area once anchored the Washington Park public housing development, which was demolished in 2006 following the discovery of lead in the soil due to a nearby brass and bronze foundry. The EPA placed the vacant property on the National Priorities List in 1990 and cleaned it up nearly 20 years later by excavating the soil and placing a concrete layer on top.

But a plan to redevelop the land was denied by a 4-3 vote Tuesday, with Vice Mayor DeAndre Barnes and council members Chris Woodard, Mark Whitaker and Paul Battle citing health concerns. They also comprise the majority that denied a similar request in 2021.

The Planning Commission unanimously approved the request in June.

Whitaker said his opposition was because the site is not risk-free and has a history of significant contamination issues, particularly in an “overlooked” minority area. He also cast doubt on the EPA’s ability to properly oversee the site due to a recent Supreme Court ruling that stripped the agency of some of those rights.

“I’m just not comfortable with allowing development on that site and potentially exposing children and families to potential risks,” Whitaker said.

Scott, also a state delegate, said that was a “poor excuse” because the site has protective covenants from the EPA that restrict what developers can do with the land. Whitaker then said he’s not convinced the covenants are sufficient.

The purchase price is $500,000, which Scott called “much-needed revenue” for the city and PRHA. He also cited the ongoing tax revenue that would be generated.

A concrete seal was placed over the soil at the property following the cleanup to prevent any contaminant runoff. Tim Burtt, an engineer with W&A Engineering, said during the meeting that the site is in a hole and within a floodplain, meaning at least seven feet of fill and soil would be needed before construction. Around $13 million would have been invested in the project, he later told The Virginian-Pilot.

“We’re making a situation that is very tough, better,” he told council members.

Scott said this plan was revised from a similar request, from the same company, that was denied in April 2021. One of those changes was granting the city some authority over the property rather than allowing the EPA to be solely responsible, Scott said.

Scott added that the EPA recommended approval for the project.

Battle said he’d only support the project if the EPA stopped by after completion to formally deem the site free of health hazards, but he ultimately opposed the project.

Woodard also cited health concerns. “We can’t just chase a dollar because we need tax revenue,” he said.

But some Portsmouth residents disagreed and cited a need to attract quality businesses, get the property on the tax rolls and provide storage for military members. A couple residents also noted the site is near the fire station located just down the road at 1601 Effingham St.

“So what’s the problem with this being placed here if there’s no problem with the fire station being there,” Nikia Miller asked.

Jaris Whitehurst Roberts asked what the council would allow to sit on the site since it can’t accommodate a place where people reside or frequent like apartments or a park.

Mark Gedulig-Yatrofsky, who said he’s an environmental advocate, said he can attest to the seriousness of health concerns, but that the EPA has used “good science” over the last decade to remediate environmental concerns that wouldn’t have been resolved in the past.

Scott told The Virginian-Pilot he wasn’t surprised by the denial since it was rejected last year. But he added that he intends to help present a tweaked site plan in another year.

Natalie Anderson, 757-732-1133, natalie.anderson@virginiamedia.com