The Virginian-Pilot
©
CHESAPEAKE
In 2006, Kurt A. Lorenz bought 22 acres of vacant land in southern Chesapeake for $330,000. There, he hoped to build a retirement home, keep some horses and live out the American dream.
Instead, the deal has become his worst nightmare.
Today, he faces a $22,750 fine from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, plus a $50,000 expense to restore wetlands that, Lorenz says, he did not know were on the site.
He sued in hope of nullifying the land sale, saying the previous owner did not disclose that wetlands existed on the property, off Centerville Turnpike South. But he lost in court and still is paying off legal expenses.
Also, about this time a year ago, Lorenz lost his job. He has been forced to move to New York, if temporarily, to work for a family business.
"I got taken to the cleaners," Lorenz said last week when reached by phone. "It's been a life-changing episode, believe me. It nearly wrecked me."
State environmental officials say the case is unusual on several fronts, including its many twists and turns over the past four years.
Their proposed settlement, including the fine and restoration requirement, was publicly released two weeks ago. The State Water Control Board still must approve the terms and will consider them at its meeting next month in Richmond.
"It's been a mess of a case," said Daniel Van Orman, a state enforcement specialist. "We don't want to beat up on a homeowner, but the damage was done."
Among other lessons, the case illustrates the complex process of developing property in wetlands-rich Hampton Roads, and how knowing the rules and asking the right questions are critical before moving forward.
The wetlands that Lorenz is accused of damaging without government permits are not the marshy, idyllic features dotted by cattails and great blue herons. Instead, they resemble forests and fields.
But their soils are slightly wetter and their plant life slightly different - indicators that they are non tidal wetlands, protected by state and federal regulations that require permits and planning as well as compensation for altering them for development.
Wetlands, both tidal and non tidal, are important ecological features, filtering pollutants, controlling flooding and providing habitat for wildlife. They also are slowly disappearing across Virginia, replaced by offices, roads, shops and, yes, dream homes and horse farms.
The Department of Environmental Quality got involved in the Lorenz case by accident. In 2008, according to records and officials, state inspectors were investigating a complaint at a neighboring property where wetlands also were suspected of being torn up and filled without required permits.
During a break, inspectors peeked through some pine trees separating the two tracts and noticed similar activity. About 10 acres had been graded smooth, with tree stumps torn out and made into a pile of wood chips, according to records.
The inspectors contacted Lorenz, who had cleared the land and was already building the frame of a new horse barn.
Turns out, he had no state or federal wetlands permits, and no city building or land-disturbance permits, according to case records. The inspectors ordered all construction stopped.
It would never start up again.
In Chesapeake Circuit Court, Lorenz and his attorney argued in 2009 that the previous owner, W.R. Malbon Family LLC, and its agent, Jonathan Decker, knew there were wetlands on the property but did not say anything about them.
"Upon receiving the wetlands assessment, the defendants affirmatively represented to plaintiff's realtor that there were no environmental concerns or issue on the property," according to Lorenz's lawsuit.
Attorneys for the defendants countered that Lorenz never asked whether wetlands existed, nor did Malbon or Decker specifically say that there were wetlands on the site - though court records show they did say two types of wetland plants were present.
"Lorenz subjectively believed without inquiry that Decker's representation as to the absence of environmental concerns included wetlands," the defendants argued.
In the end, Judge Randall D. Smith dismissed the claim, signing an order that Lorenz was given information "that should have excited his suspicions." But instead, the order says, he bought the tract with "imprudent confidence."
The site once again is for sale, though regulators want Lorenz to restore the wetlands before accepting any offers.
"There's been a lot of heartache, a lot of trouble over that piece of property," Lorenz said. "At this point, though, I really just want to move on."
Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
A Regional Issue
What the person in Chesapeake did is not the odd incident. Property owners and developers with masses of land will take advantage of slack municipalities and work on weekends and in the hidden portions of sites to do what they want to accomplish that the necessary permits would not allow. Land disturbing activities are controlled by the general permit for construction activities issued by the VaDCR. If followed, that permit controls the loss of sediments and related pollutants from disturbed areas. If draining to the Bay, that permit is required for working on as little as one-half acre. The VaDEQ staff performed their assigned duties and as is often the case, less than legitimate activities were in clear view on an adjacent property. This type of discovery happens frequently when inspectors are able to enter the field in these days of reduced budgets, over tasked staff, intentional redirection of attention to favored projects, or even situations where some activities are shielded by superiors. If full efforts were made by local and state inspectors, lots of similar situations would be found.
due diligence
Building a barn without a building permit doesn't sound like someone who cared about doing their homework. While I believe there should be a legal requirement to disclose the existence of protected wetlands upon transfer of title, I can't pity someone who began a major clearing and construction project without, at the very least, obtaining a city building permit.
Good luck with your problem, sir, but place blame where blame is due.
A FYI........
In VA certain buildings on farms are exempt from having a permit. Depends on what it was zoned if he needed one or not.
Business friendly...
What about the sc()mbag lawyer/Realtor? Do business anyway you want to! So much so that they're allowed to hide valuable information: Caveat emptor; America's Creed business at any cost.
Isn't this just stealing?
Really, what we do with "wetlands regulation" is to take a portion of a person's property, which he would like to put to some use, and tell him he must leave it as a wetland because we, collectively, think it has more value environmentally than as he would like to use it.
It that is so, should we not condemn the land and pay him for it, just as if we wanted to use it for a post office or a military base?
Instead, we are just taking his land for our use as a swamp or marsh without compensating him for it.
At the least, we should be purchasing an easement from him for public use of his land.
But simply making his land useless to him by regulation is no better than theft.
Trash Dump Coming Next to You
OK, toothman. I'm buying the property next to your house and will begin my spent nuclear waste dump. Nobody has ever compensated the property owner for that zoning prohibition. Enjoy the glow!
his choice
He chose to purchase the property. Doesn't he bear any responsibility for not researching his purchase? What interests me is why he chose to build the barn on that part of his 22 acres. Presumably his house isn't on wetlands and you'd assume he'd build the barn near the house. However, since the Pilot didn't publish an address we can't Google Earth it to see whether this was an honest mistake or deliberate destruction by the owner.
Doesn't matter
Someone owned the property at the time the regulations were put in place. That person was robbed of the use, or resale value, of his property.
Denying people use of their property for some public good, like a wetland, by regulation in place of purchasing the land is stealing.
We're just using government to do it.
Your Opinion Is Not Law
In the U.S, Supreme Court case, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, decided by a 6-3 vote in 1992, the Court's most conservative justice--Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority that compensation under the Fifth Amendment is only required if regulatory restrictions deprive a property owner of "all economically beneficial uses" of the property. Unless the property is rendered totally useless, no "taking" of proprety has occurred.
Government does many things that impact the value of property--some actions make the value increase and some actions make it decrease. Requiring compensation for any action that decreases a property's value would render government action nearly impossible on anything. Just increasing interest rates to combat inflation can decrease a property value. This theory that every government action adversely impacting property values should require compensation would destroy our economy and nation. What would that do for property values?
barney fifes
i tell you ,these wildlife rangers/enforcers ct like regular barney fifes.
they go after anybody that messes up as if they just broke open the french connection
i know somebody whoi got caught spotlighting for deer.gr4anted i got know proem with giving them a good fine ,but they wanted to crucify the poor guy,take his vehichle guns everything.i myself aloost had to go to court for cutting a freakin tree limb that was ouling my tent,and i was on a tent pad!
they way overinflate their own importance.