Citizen review

The Goochland Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) does not meet often. This panel, recommended by the Board of Supervisors and appointed by the Circuit Court, provides an independent voice in disputes about land use issues. Hearing and deciding appeals of administrative decisions on zoning ordinances is one of the BZA’s duties.

Current members of the Goochland BZA are: Carol Coe; Paul Springman; Rob Parker; Amanda Kowlaski; and Neil Spoonhower.

On Monday, July 16, the BZA held a hearing to consider an appeal made by Courthouse Associates, LLC of a May 17, 2018  notice of zoning violation made by the Goochland County Zoning Administrator, Anita Barnes.  Spoonhower was absent.

The violation contended that Courthouse Associates, LLC failed to construct a “water impoundment structure” and functional dry hydrant  in the Mill Forest subdivision, which is located on the west side of Rt. 522 in the Sandy Hook area, when homes were built there at least 15 years ago. The BZA was charged with determining only if the water impoundment structure and dry hydrant had ever been built, not actions in the intervening years. Ownership and maintenance were not addressed. The decision of the zoning administrator, Anita Barnes, is assumed to be connect unless the appellant can provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.

A dry hydrant provides access to a local water source for use in fighting fires. One end of the dry hydrant has a coupling to connect to a fire engine, the other, fitted with a strainer to prevent debris from clogging lines, is in a water source, beneath drought level to ensure a reliable water supply. (See http://www.dof.virginia.gov/fire/dryhydrant/index.htm )

A complaint from a Mill Forest resident about a “pipe” that suddenly appeared on property designated as a site for a dry hydrant was the genesis of the case. County land records indicate that the .616 acre parcel in question is currently owned by Courthouse Associates, LLC.

Assistant Goochland County Attorney Whitney Marshall contended that Courthouse Associates never built the water impoundment structure and dry hydrant as required by proffer number ten of the rezoning ordinance, which has the force of county law, for that portion of Mill Forest and is required to build the structure to comply with the ordinance.

Leigh Gordon, a principal in Courthouse associates, LLC, testified that he did install a dry hydrant on the subject property, built to prevailing standards around 2003. The installation included, he said, a pipe with a strainer that accessed a water supply, and  “rip rap”.  Over the years, the parcel became overgrown.

Goochland Fire Marshal Doug Davies testified that he found no evidence of a strainer and that the pipe on the parcel connects to a small stream with only a few inches of water. Davies said he had “no clue” what might have been there years ago. Gordon offered to excavate the site to retrieve the strainer, which he contended, became “silted in” due to the passage of time and lack of maintenance.

Marshall argued that a pipe and some rocks were insufficient evidence that the water impoundment and dry hydrant was ever built. There was, she said, no record of it ever being on the fire-rescue list of dry hydrants, or an inspection upon completion.

Darvin Satterwhite, representing Courthouse Associates, LLC, presented the  Mill Forest II Section 2 plan of development, approved by Barnes in 2003, which, he contended, requires compliance with all rezoning proffers before building permits are issued, as evidence that the structure in question had been built.

Barnes testified that plat approval of the proposed subdivision she signed indicated only the designated location of the dry hydrant and associated structure, not that they had been constructed. Barnes said she was unaware of any county policy, at the time, requiring inspection of dry hydrants to ensure that they had indeed been built to prevailing standards. Today, she said, things are different.

The BZA went into closed session with its counsel, Charlottesville land use attorney

Maynard Sipe. Returning to open session, members commented on the case.

Springman said he believed that Barnes was correct, that the appellant did not present sufficient evidence that the water impoundment structure and dry hydrant had been built in accordance with the proffer.

Coe said she believed that something had been built on the site, but, as there were few regulations or inspection policies pertaining to those facilities at the time, it was hard to know what was there.

 Kowalski said that the photos presented indicate that something was built there15 years ago and not maintained, but was there.

Parker contended that something was put there with the intention to comply with the proffer, but erosion and tree growth altered the site. He agreed that plat approval indicated compliance with all proffers.

The BZA voted 3-1, with Springman in dissent, to uphold the Courthouse Associates’ contention that it did comply with the proffer requiring a water impoundment structure and dry hydrant. It is unclear if the county will appeal that decision to the Circuit Court.

This case illustrates the importance of land use regulations and inspection to ensure compliance. It seems as though the developer built what he believed to be an acceptable water impoundment structure and dry hydrant as required by the proffer, but the county, for whatever reason, failed to inspect or notify fire-rescue of its existence.

Current county development policies keep close tabs on these requirements to ensure that all proffers are fulfilled in a timely manner, with sanctions for failure to comply. Kudos to BZA members for their service to the community.