Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cvpa 24 0108 Violations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After‑the‑fact violation case at 112 Lands and Drive approved 3–2 after debate over remediation
Summary
The Chesapeake Bay Board voted 3–2 to approve an exception for a deck, pool and outbuilding at 112 Lands and Drive despite staff finding unapproved installations; the approval requires doubled mitigation, a $4,500 surety, a $3,000 mitigation‑fund payment and recorded affidavits as conditions.
The James City County Chesapeake Bay Board narrowly approved (3–2) an exception request on Dec. 11 for a property at 112 Lands and Drive that includes after‑the‑fact work and outstanding violations.
Amanda Frazier, the watershed planner presenting the case, told the board staff discovered several unapproved installations on the property and reported that county policy generally disfavors approving projects with outstanding violations. “County policy is not to approve any project that has outstanding violations,” she told the board as she outlined options: deny the application, defer while violations are remedied, or approve the application with the violations remedied as part of the approval.
The applicant’s representative, architect Ahmed Hassan, said he represented the owner and asked the board to approve the application under staff‑supervised remediation. He told the board he was donating his time on the case and acknowledged the violations, saying in part, “Ken Brown, who's obviously been a bad boy.” Hassan asked the board to allow the applicants to work with staff on a mitigation plan and to approve the project subject to those conditions.
Staff recommended that, if the board chose to approve under option 3, mitigation rates be doubled for the after‑the‑fact items, resulting in a requirement of six planting units for the cumulative impervious impact, a $4,500 surety to guarantee the plantings and a payment of $3,000 into the Chesapeake Bay Mitigation Fund prior to issuance of building permits for the pool. Staff also required submission of a mitigation plan, professional verification of BMP installation where specified and an affidavit recorded at the Williamsburg James City County Courthouse prior to final surety release.
After board discussion about the county’s enforcement posture and about whether the proposal represented the minimum necessary to afford relief, the motion to approve under staff‑recommended conditions passed 3–2. Votes recorded on the motion show Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Waltrip and Mr. Roadley voting yes; Mr. May and Ms. Bowie voted no.
The board directed staff to work with the applicant to finalize the mitigation plan. Staff reiterated that, if the parties could not reach required agreements during post‑approval iterations, building permits would not be issued and the county’s violation enforcement process would proceed.
Next steps: the approval will require the applicant to submit specified surety and mitigation documentation and to begin construction by the deadline stated in the approval (construction must begin by 12/11/2025 unless a timely extension is filed).
