Welcome

Bookmark and Share

Mt. Airy: Historic Watkins Building Owner Fights Town Hall

Courtesy Photo

Courtesy Photo

Courtesy Photo

Courtesy Photo

It’s been nearly four years since the 2007 fire destroyed two buildings that housed seven businesses in downtown Mount Airy.  And a very long four years for Bill Chapman, owner of one of the destroyed buildings, the Watkins Building, a Historic Mount Airy Landmark. Chapman is being fined by the Town $200 a day for alleged site code violations. The case is now in litigation and Mount Airy taxpayers are footing the bill.

“It all has to do with the front of the building,” said Chapman. “They wanted it to look like everything else. We wanted to change it so that it didn’t look like a cookie cutter, rubber stamp type of architecture.” The building’s front was changed to a stone material instead of the brick that’s all along Main Street. Chapman’s online petition shows many Main Street business owners and residents prefer the changes and don’t understand why the Town is pursuing this issue.

After the fire, Chapman noted the town was very supportive and encouraged everyone to rebuild. Chapman felt confident that he had the full faith and support of the town behind him and based on the town’s support decided to rebuild. “The building has been in my family since the ‘70’s,” added Chapman.

But during the build out process, site plan change approvals were verbally given by Town staff. Chapman was under the assumption staff had the ability to approve minor changes. “When we got a use and occupancy inspection by the county, the inspector, Jay Voight saw that it ddin’t match the site plan. He contacted Town staff and the Town Planner verbally OK’d the changes,” said Chapman.

“I spoke with the Town Planner at the time who said she had approved the changes, although the changes had not been approved yet on the site plan,” said Voight.

Monica Weierbach was not available for comment due to the current litigation. In an email, Tom McCarron, the Town’s attorney wrote: “The ordinances of the Town make very clear, along with a statement to this effect that Mr. Chapman himself signed on the site plan, that his site plan was to be strictly followed and that any deviations from the site plan required approval of an amended site plan. That is and has always been the policy of the Town as far as I am aware. Once again, Monika did not say that she approved any changes to the site plan. She stated that the County had talked to her about issuance of a Use and Occupancy Permit for one or more portions of the project before final completion of the project. As the record I think will demonstrate, the Town has attempted to work with Mr. Chapman toward an amicable resolution of these matters, and continues to be willing to do so.”

Chapman pointed out Town Hall itself was constructed in the same manor. “They made major changes and deviated greatly from their site plan,” said Chapman. “When I pointed this out to planning and zoning, they looked at it themselves and found the variations. I also brought up at the April 2010 Planning and Zoning meeting.”  

Per the P and Z meeting minutes and video of April 2010, Chris Everich, Town Councilman at the time and liaison to Planning and Zoning stated he had difficulty requiring Mr. Chapman to come into full compliance in light of the information. “I’m standing here and looking at the different things that were done with town hall and I’m struck by the fact that we violated our own process. We should have been monitoring the building for site compliance and we didn’t do it. I would recommend, the process has failed us, clearly when moving forward we need to make sure that town staff is looking at site plans and we immediately stop the program.”

“The driving force behind this is Diane Gleason,” said Chapman. At the same April meeting, Diane Gleason, P&Z Commission member, said, “staff is advisory and staff doesn’t make these decisions. The planning commission does.” I think that the fact is going back and saying I told this person or I told that person the fact is laying blame doesn’t help anything, you obviously didn’t talk to the right people, you didn’t come back to the planning commission as you were supposed to. Very bluntly, you didn’t hold up your end of the deal.”

The Commission ultimately voted Chapman in violation of the original site plan. The issue was then turned over to the Mayor who did not forward to the Board of Appeals. Chapman contends that the Mayor’s decision to begin fining instead of forwarding to the Appeals Board is improper because he voted as a Member of Planning and Zoning prior to becoming Mayor.

Recently Chapman sent a letter to the Town Council asking them to vote to dismiss the case against him and hold the Mayor accountable for his conduct. In his letter, he wrote, “How many of my tax dollars are you willing to allow the Mayor and Planning and Zoning commission to spend on this pointless effort? How much have they already spent?”

weigh in

You must log in to post comments.