Rural Crescent lawsuit drawing nearer

It's a rock and a hard place that both sides of a burgeoning lawsuit say they face.

On one hand is a Nokesville property owner who can't hook up a planned home to an existing sewer line but is also denied by state code use of an alternative system. The 16-plus acres are substantially devalued, he claims.

On the other side is the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, who no doubt understand the landowner's financial dilemma but say they can't risk the precedent-setting danger of opening the doors to further hookups and more developments in an area of the county set aside for conservation.

The landowner can build a school, a church or a park instead, some on the board say.

Which line of thought prevails will likely be decided in court, as the attorney for the Rural Crescent property owners, a West Virginia couple, Gilberto and Cintia Guel, just took the last step that state code requires prior to the case heading toward court.

On Aug. 11, Gifford Hampshire with Blankingship and Keith law firm filed a claim to the board of supervisors outlining his client's grievances -- that members wrongfully denied the Guels' appeal in July that would have overturned staff and Planning Commission determinations that "the requested sewer connection was substantially inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan," the letter reads.

Because the Health Department had already denied the Guels' permit request for an on-site sewer disposal system based on soil tests, the supervisors' action amounted to a regulatory taking, the claim states.

"By denying the right to connect to sewer, therefore, the board has taken all economically viable use of the property and must compensate the Guels for this taking," the paperwork continues.

In the claim and at previous board presentations, the Guels' argument is also that due diligence had been exercised at the 2005 time of property purchase to ensure that a single-family home could be built on the 16 acres. Moreover, the county has allowed other properties to connect to the existing sewer line, and capacity is still available for the Guels to do the same, according to the claim and its attachments.

"If this case were to go to trial, we would present evidence that, as a result of the board's action, the property was either rendered valueless or severely diminished from its value of at least $520,600 as a buildable lot," the claim continues.

County attorney Ross Horton declined comment on the matter. But Chairman Corey Stewart, R-at large, said he saw little sense in the board hearing the Guels' claim, as the letter requests, because members' opinions have not likely changed since the last two presentations.

"They've had two chances to give their side, they've had two bites of the apple already," Stewart said, of the Guels' July 22 appeal and Aug. 5 citizens' time request for reconsideration. "They've already been given their opportunity to make their request and there's no indication I have that the board would [change position]."

Stewart, one of five on the board who voted on July 22 to deny the Guels' appeal -- and in so doing, support the staff and Planning Commission determination that sewer hook-up should not be allowed -- said his reasons were rooted in law and the need for consistent application of existing standards.

"Every time you make an exception to the rule, you are potentially setting a precedent and allowing for the additional and larger development into the Rural Crescent," he said. "The board has been consistent in protecting the Rural Crescent, with very, very few exceptions … and we're confident and the county attorney is confident we're clearly doing the right thing."

Stewart said he was aware that a lawsuit was likely pending, but the case was "clear cut" from his perspective and the Guels' property did not meet the criteria for exception to the sewer hook-up prohibition: The owners do not have a failing system on an existing home and they do not have property that's been grandfathered for connection, he said.

"The board is not going to allow for the willowing away of the Rural Crescent," he said.

The three board members who supported the Guels' appeal in July were supervisors Martin Nohe, R-Coles; Wally Covington, R-Brentsville; and John Jenkins, D-Neabsco. Nohe did not return a telephone call Wednesday for comment about the claim in time for deadline.

In early August, the Guels had approached the board again for a reconsideration of ruling. Rules dictate that only those board members who previously denied the appeal could initiate such, and none of those present members -- vice chair John Stirrup, R-Gainesville; or supervisors Maureen Caddigan, R-Dumfries; Mike May, R-Occoquan; and Frank Principi, D-Woodbridge -- made the motion.

Staff writer Cheryl Chumley can be reached at 703-670-1907.