County rejects Nokesville home
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
By Cheryl Chumley
Published: July 23, 2008
It was a split decision, 5-3, but in the end Prince William supervisors told a West Virginia couple Tuesday they couldn't build a home on their 16-plus acres of Nokesville property.
One cited reason: The owners should have known at the time of purchase that the county would never approve a sewer hookup to the existing line, given the proximity of the property to the Rural Crescent.
"Certainly this is a difficult decision," said vice chair John Stirrup, R-Gainesville, explaining his vote. "But you have to go back and put the burden on the property owners. The county provides extensive maps and it's very easy to spend some time and do some due diligence on any property you're thinking of investing in."
In 2005, Gilberto and Cintia Guel purchased the property at 13301 Fitzwater Drive with intent of someday building a single-family residence. Since they encountered financial hardship and to save their West Virginia home, they decided to sell the Prince William parcel.
They found a buyer but to their reported surprise, learned they could neither hook up to the area's existing sewer line—because of county Comprehensive Plans—nor install an alternative system because of state prohibitions.
As such, the buyer balked and the Guels went to the board to appeal the previous sewer hook-up denial that came at the recommendation of staff and, by tacit agreement, the Planning Commission.
"Our recommendation is you support the determination of the Planning Commission," Ray Utz, chief of long-range planning for the county, told board members at Tuesday's appeal.
Agreeing were Stirrup and Chairman Corey Stewart, R-at large, along with supervisors Maureen Caddigan, R-Dumfries; Frank Principi, D-Woodbridge; and Michael May, R-Occoquan.
Stewart said he found it difficult to believe the Realtor who helped the Guels purchase the property had worked 13 years in the county but did not know the prohibitions related to sewer in the Rural Crescent.
Caddigan said the property owners did not lose all rights to build on their land—that they could still, as Utz previ-ously explained, construct a church, a school, a park, a library or another public facility.
May said he found the issue similar to that of a recent appeal involving a Fast Fuels gas station and whether the Comprehensive Plan allowed the business to erect a red, yellow and white striped sign. Then, the board ruled "no" and in so doing, ordered the sign be removed and solid white erected in its place. Likewise, the board ought to uphold existing land-use planning in this case, he said.
And Principi said simply he "would vote in support of staff."
On the other side, though, came concern for private property rights.
"I think there are very core fundamental property rights and building a [home] is one of those property rights," said Supervisor Martin Nohe, R-Coles. "I'm a big supporter of the Rural Crescent … but one house is consistent with our Comp Plan and to take away that very fundamental property right is not consistent with our community's [vision]."
Supervisor John Jenkins, D-Neabsco, meanwhile, was even blunter.
"I feel this will be an unlawful taking … it leaves the property owner without the use [of their land] … and I don't see why we would deny the gentleman and lady the right to build a home," Jenkins said.
Supervisor Wally Covington, R-Brentsville, suggested a change in the structure of assessments was warranted after learning the Guels had paid property taxes on the land since the date of purchase at a value that factored in the ability to build a home.
The Guels, who did not speak at the board meeting but instead had attorney representation, said in an earlier inter-view they would pursue the matter in court if supervisors denied their appeal.
The board actually decided the appeal with two separate votes. First, Covington motioned to overturn staff and support the Guels' appeal, but only Nohe and Jenkins supported. Following, Stirrup motioned to support staff and deny the Guels' appeal; then May, Stewart, Principi and Caddigan cast votes in favor.
Staff writer Cheryl Chumley can be reached at 703-670-1907.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( HEAL ) on July 30, 2008 at 10:47 am
Stop pointing fingers at someone else and assist this family do what is necessary for survival. Proactive is much better than picking up all the pieces at a later date.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( AtrixWolfe ) on July 28, 2008 at 1:51 pm
If I were charged the residential tax rate, I’d probably think I could actually build a residence… silly me.
Since the state plans are also available, the county has also blundered, and should show some responsibility. If the county’s contention is that the state devalued the property by not allowing a septic system, then the county needs to file with the state to get the owners paid the difference between the value of their property as residential and the value as commercial.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( kgotthardt ) on July 25, 2008 at 10:01 am
Yesterday, I wrote to Wally Covington, my BOCS local government rep, to ask why Gilberto and Cintia Guel’s Nokesville property could not be purchased by the county as recreation land.
While it is true that property owners have the responsibility to assess their land’s ability to support housing, it seems that the advice or lack thereof they were given by their realtor and others warrants some consideration. Unless the couple can sell the land, they will be left in poor financial straights.
Chairman Stewart says he was surprised the couple did not receive full or accurate disclosure from their realtor at the time of the purchase. As someone who did not receive full disclosure from our realtor, this does not surprise me at all. Realtors often do not know as much about property as they should, and some just outright omit information in order to close the sale.
But the real issue here is that the county has planned to buy more park property anyway, especially given the over-development in certain districts like ours. Nokesville still has lovely, more open sections that should be maintained as such. I am sure the local residents would appreciate preserved land as opposed to more construction. And let’s face it--we already have enough empty homes without having to build more.
While parks do not generate revenue, they contribute to the viability of the county which can generate increased tax revenue and jobs.
I am asking the BOCS through the Parks to purchase this land and preserve it as a passive recreational area, not to take responsibility for private decisions, but to better our county. This is an opportunity to help out a needy family as well as gain protected land. It would be the kind of win-win our BOCS should be seeking.
Yesterday, I wrote to Wally Covington, my BOCS local government rep, to ask why Gilberto and Cintia Guel’s Nokesville property could not be purchased by the county as recreation land.
While it is true that property owners have the responsibility to assess their land’s ability to support housing, it seems that the advice or lack thereof they were given by their realtor and others warrants some consideration. Unless the couple can sell the land, they will be left in poor financial straights.
Chairman Stewart says he was surprised the couple did not receive full or accurate disclosure from their realtor at the time of the purchase. As someone who did not receive full disclosure from our realtor, this does not surprise me at all. Realtors often do not know as much about property as they should, and some just outright omit information in order to close the sale.
But the real issue here is that the county has planned to buy more park property anyway, especially given the over-development in certain districts like ours. Nokesville still has lovely, more open sections that should be maintained as such. I am sure the local residents would appreciate preserved land as opposed to more construction. And let’s face it--we already have enough empty homes without having to build more.
While parks do not generate revenue, they contribute to the viability of the county which can generate increased tax revenue and jobs.
I am asking the BOCS through the Parks to purchase this land and preserve it as a passive recreational area, not to take responsibility for private decisions, but to better our county. This is an opportunity to help out a needy family as well as gain protected land. It would be the kind of win-win our BOCS should be seeking.
http://luxuriouschoices.blogspot.com/2008/07/regarding-gilberto-and-cintia-guel.html
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on July 25, 2008 at 9:26 am
So the county said they cannot have sewer for a home but they could build a church, gas station, or a school. wouldn’t these things require bathrooms for potentially hundreds of people ? Yet it is somehow not legal for a typical family of 5. The real kicker is that if this were a developer, sewer hookup would get approved for multiple homes. Also, if the county already taxed them on the property as being suitable for a home, they infact already consented to such construction.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( justmebobby ) on July 25, 2008 at 8:58 am
why move when i love where i live.I just dont like our second rate supervisors/police dept/schools so go ahead and turn your cheak and pretend there is no problem.I will stay and try to fix it.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( PABLO ) on July 24, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Something really stinks here! This Board of Supervisors is the same group of alleged representatives of the people of Prince William County that votes to change zoning for developers to overbuild and clog our highways time and time again!
Seems like a single family building one home on 16 acres has no money to offer the supervisors in the way of campaign funds or support for their socialistic programs. These people want to build a single home but don’t have the resources to support the growth of county government. Seems like only a few months ago, a church was granted the exception to the comprehensive plan to put in a sewage line. It must be the motivation of potential votes that got that one through.
What motivates such destructive behavior of the PWC BOCS, our representatives?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( kgotthardt ) on July 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“Stewart said he found it difficult to believe the Realtor who helped the Guels purchase the property had worked 13 years in the county but did not know the prohibitions related to sewer in the Rural Crescent.”
I don’t.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( zcxnissan ) on July 24, 2008 at 3:08 pm
They knew the rules it is their own fault. LOL Chris Cummings. First rate county when it comes to enforcing the law against illegals. LOL Chris Cummings
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Supermomof1 ) on July 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm
We are NOT a second rate county!! We put these people in office. I beleive that they should be able to build. This doesn’t only have too do with the county it has state prohibition too.
If you think we are second rate-MOVE
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Northside ) on July 24, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“Caddigan said the property owners did not lose all rights to build on their land—that they could still, as Utz previ-ously explained, construct a church, a school, a park, a library or another public facility.”
Can someone please explain what the difference would be?
Report Inappropriate Comment