For a while, it looked like the kerfuffle over the
relocation of Benedictine College Preparatory (BHP) was resolved. The school
and the county worked through all of the details of converting the property
into an educational facility. The school found an adjoining property owner
willing to sell some land to facilitate construction of the wider entrance
required by VDOT.
Construction started and stopped, and started again. Now it
is complete.
Just when it seemed like things were moving forward, an
appeal concerning the plan of development approved by the county in accordance
with standard procedure, was filed with the Board of Zoning Appeals by some
people who live near the school.
Allegations in the appeal focus on concerns about the plan’s
failure to adequately address the downstream consequences of runoff from the
newly expanded entrance. Although VDOT would seem to be primarily responsible
for all matters dealing with access to state highways like River Road, the
matter was bounced back to the county.
If the motivation behind this appeal is fear that changes to
grading and increased paving will cause storm water runoff to damage adjoining
properties, the current heavy rains should provide ample, irrefutable evidence
to either refute or support the allegations.
The county and BCP contend that the appellants: Andrew
Thexton, James E. Harris Jr., Delano and Berlene Richardson have no standing to
bring the complaint and that the BZA has no jurisdiction to rule on the matter.
Resolution of the appeal challenging the January 29, 2013 approval of a POD is
still up in the air after two protracted BZA sessions.
At the June 17 session the BZA voted 2-2 in the matter of
jurisdiction after meeting in closed session with its attorney Maynard Sipe.
The tie vote usually is construed to uphold the county’s position,
because, according to its own bylaws, a majority vote is required for the BZA to
overturn the extant policy.
However, the prevailing notion this time is that the tie
rule applies only to matters in the appeal, not procedural issues like
jurisdiction.
The county and BCP disagreed with that interpretation and
moved to have the jurisdiction vote reconsidered on July 12. If the BZA still
considers itself to have jurisdiction it will reconvene in August to hear
testimony of witnesses about the particulars of the January appeal.
At the June 17 hearing, BCP headmaster Jesse Grapes said
that the school will open as scheduled for the fall semester. County Attorney
Norman Sales said that the county is able to issue a certificate of occupancy
for BCP regardless of the pending appeal.
To the untrained eye, topographic maps included in the POD
indicate that the land around BCP slopes toward the James River and Rt. 288. As
water flows downhill, any erosion should be on BCP property. If detailed arguments
are eventually heard by the BZA, no doubt civil engineers on both sides will present
mind numbing evidence to support their contentions.
The gracious plenty of rainfall the area is now receiving
should provide ample opportunity to gather evidence to support or refute the storm
water runoff issue and help to resolve the matter.
Aside from the concerns about storm water runoff, vaguer
issues seem to be muddying the waters. The District 5 seat on the BZA remains
vacant, so its citizens have no representation in the proceedings. At an
organizational meeting in late April, District 1 BZA member Dr. Richard
Carchman contended that an empty seat for the district where the matter is
located does not pass the smell test.
Yasmine Hamad, appointed to the District 4 seat earlier this
year, has become an integral part of the BZA. Board of Supervisors’ chair Ken
Peterson, who represents District 5, said that finding someone free of bias in
this matter that is willing to jump into this fray has been challenging. He is leery
of making any appointment that could be construed as trying to influence the
outcome one way or the other. District 5 residents with no opinion in the
matter willing to deal with irate phone calls and massive briefs, should
contact their supervisor.
Peterson did explain that the Board recently voted to add
alternate members to the BZA to ensure that a tie scenario does not happened again.
When the smoke has cleared, the winners in this dispute will
be the attorneys involved. According to the county’s online check register,
Goochland has shelled out more than $45,000 in outside counsel fees since last
December. The opponents and BCP have also retained counsel. A legal
stenographer was hired by BCP to record the proceedings. The meter is still
running. Guess who pays that tab?
To be sure, no one should be deprived of due process or
denied a mechanism to question actions taken by the county that could harm
their property. Members of the BZA should strive to make impartial rulings
based on the law rather behind the scenes maneuvering.
However, if this BZA appeal is one more attempt to sandbag
BCP’s move to River Road, the opponents need to get over it. Barring an act of
God, the school will open for classes this fall at the River Road site.
No comments:
Post a Comment