 |
|||
 Ward, Chewning, Richwine, Donoff, Smith, Thrift elected County to get $100,000 in courthouse settlement HARB denies ‘floating’ condos; developer appeals updated Ward, Chewning, Richwine, Donoff, Smith, Thrift elected Urbanna voters re-elected two incumbent town council members and chose four new council members on Tuesday. Current council member Beatrice Taylor, who ran unopposed for mayor, was elected with 193 votes. Only two council members kept their seats—Bill Thrift, with 150 votes, and Janet Smith with 140 votes. Newly-elected council members and the number of votes they received are as follows: Don Richwine, 157; Joanie Ward, 143, Lee Chewning, 141; and Rich Donoff, 133. Richwine has served on council before, but made an unsuccessful bid for mayor in 2006. Ward, Chewning and Donoff will be serving their first terms. All terms are for two years. Incumbent Steve Hollberg got 90 votes, and steps down after serving one term. Challenger Bob Calves got 96 votes. Incumbent Bob Henkel, who withdrew from the race last week, got 42 votes. Incumbent mayor Ken Moore and council member Megan Brockman did not seek re-election.
County to get $100,000 in courthouse settlement by Larry S. Chowning URather than take the fight any further in an expensive court battle, Middlesex County and courthouse architects Wiley & Wilson of Lynchburg have settled their differences and promised not to say another ill word about each other. Wiley & Wilson designed the new courthouse in Saluda that was supposed to open in 2005. However, the opening was delayed over two years when problems arose from rain water leaking into the basement through structural column pockets, and mold growing on the walls. Ritchie-Curbow, the courthouse contractor, argued that the walls should have been water-proofed instead of damp-proofed as called for by the architect. Neither the contractor nor the architect were willing to assume responsibility for the courthouse leakage. The county refused to occupy the building until the matter was fixed. In September 2006, supervisors hired the Richmond law firm of Kaufman & Canoles and filed suit against Wiley & Wilson in Middlesex County Circuit Court. On May 6, supervisors voted to accept a settlement agreement and a “mutual release” from any further court action. According to the settlement, Wiley & Wilson must pay the county $100,000 by May 15, but will not admit to any wrongdoing. The settlement and mutual release states that Middlesex County filed a complaint against Wiley & Wilson Inc. in the circuit court of Middlesex County “asserting breach of contract claims against the firm for defective drawings and . . . failure to properly administer the construction contract for the project.” Wiley & Wilson filed a counterclaim against Middlesex for breach of contract, seeking additional compensation from the county for the project. The May 6 settlement states: “Whereas, to promote a cost-effective solution to the dispute and to save litigation costs, the parties to this agreement have agreed:
The agreement represents a compromise of disputed claims, facts and allegations and shall “never at any time for any purpose be considered an admission of the truth of any of the allegations, claims or contentions alleged in the action. The board accepted the settlement and it was signed by board chairman Kenneth W. Williams. The county’s legal expenses involving the litigation were not disclosed at the May 6 meeting due to the guidelines of the settlement agreement with the architects. The Sentinel, however, plans to file a Freedom of Information request for full disclosure of the county’s legal expenses in the matter. HARB denies ‘floating’ condos; developer appeals by Tom Chillemi Council to consider plan tonight On April 30 the Urbanna Historic and Architectural Review Board (HARB) denied a certificate of appropriateness for 14 condominiums proposed at the foot of Watling Street near the Newman Memorial Bridge. HARB’s most recent decision and another ruling HARB made on April 23 on the same 1.5 acres have both been appealed to the Urbanna Town Council by the developers. Council will consider the appeals together on Monday, May 19, at 7 p.m. Council is scheduled to consider the special use permit and a site plan for the condos at a special meeting tonight, May 8, at 7 p.m. Potomac Timber Investments has proposed demolishing an existing two-story building, two boathouses and all docks at what is now Urbanna Yachting Center. The firm proposes building a three-story marina office, lounge with manager apartments, and 14 condos that will be 35 feet high. April 30 Hearing The proposed condos would be raised above the grade on pilings. Following the public hearing HARB member Diane Gravatt said, “I see three separate floating buildings. They are up in the air; they are not rooted to the ground.” Gravatt pointed out that the developers had shown a variety of photos depicting the architecture of Urbanna, including buildings that are not in the historic district. None of the photos, however, “show buildings standing up on stilts floating in the air,” she said. “They are all grounded. I’m not seeing a connection to the architecture of the rest of the community.” HARB member Peggy Winn said she agreed. The developers’ attorney, Elliott Bondurant, told HARB that the original plan had walls covering the parking area under the condos. (At a May 1 planning commission meeting, developer Ray Watson said he’d “be happy to put the walls back.”) Gravatt also said she did not like the balconies hanging off the side of the condos. She called parking “obtrusive.” Not only will vehicles stick out from under the condos, “the open shot view of the creek that we were told we would see is really not an open shot. It’s cars. It’s SUVs. It’s possibly storage of vehicles and other equipment, jet skis, and barbecue grills.” Gravatt said the finished grade would be raised 7.25 feet,” so there is no reason for those buildings to be sitting up on stilts.” She noted that 38 parking spaces under the buildings are proposed, while 28 is the required number. She suggested making parking less obtrusive. Gravatt suggested that a computer drawing be made showing the buildings in three-dimensional form. She noted the plans do not show electric meters and satellite dishes. Gravatt said there was no plan to address archeological aspects of the development and what will be done with artifacts. At the earlier HARB meeting, residents said the existing structure the developers want to demolish was once an oyster house. Gravatt noted that in some drawings the building details are “inconsistent.” HARB member Chris Riddick said, “I’d like to see drawings that are not only complete, but that are to scale.” He noted the plan’s first pages are labeled “not to scale.” Riddick added, “Even though that is not a requirement of our board, it is confusing to me why some drawings are drawn to scale and others are not.” Riddick also contended the plan was incomplete. During the public hearing, Bob Calves asked HARB to consider “the overall size and scale of the project.” He noted the photos the developers presented of town architecture were all two stories high. “This project is out of scale and is just simply too high and too massive.” He suggested scaling the project to two stories and a maximum height of about 25 feet. Diana Pitts said, “We are living in a tiny town that represents a part of America that is almost extinct, especially on the East Coast.” She presented a painting that showed the different town architectures that “blend in” and neither stands out nor is “overpowering.” The proposed condos have the “least possible accents” in an attempt to match architecture of Urbanna, said Pitts, noting there are no covered porches or shutters. “We see things differently on the bottom,” said Pitts. “You see columns, I see stilts.” Pitts produced a drawing with cars under the buildings, unlike the developers’ drawing that showed the area under the building as being open. Pitts also questioned the number of parking spaces. She said 78 spaces would not be enough if the developers build 115 boat slips as planned. She called the condos “a stark cold structure exhibiting none of the features that would make it blend into Urbanna. It will tower above everything around here.” Bobbie Wyker, whose property adjoins the proposed condo property, spoke in opposition. She read from the town code a section dealing with design guidelines. Not recommended is “introducing new construction in historic districts that is visually incompatible or that destroys historic relationships within the district or neighborhood.” Bondurant contended that section of the code applies to “additions.” He added the proposed condos are architecturally compatible with surrounding buildings. “So we feel it does meet the code.”
Home | Editorial & Letters | Leisure | Church | Around Middlesex | Sports | School | Classifieds | Events | Links |
|||
