|
|
||
State cites builder for disturbing wetlands in Spotsylvania County Date published: 9/18/2010
By RUSTY DENNEN Winchester Homes is facing a $20,100 fine for altering wetlands at its Glen Haven South subdivision in Spotsylvania. The State Water Control Board proposed the action, and other remedial measures, in a consent order signed last month. A consent order is a negotiated agreement between the agency and the responsible party. According to the order, Winchester Homes had permission for construction work that would have had minor impacts on wetlands at the site near Spotswood Furnace Road. But during an inspection in July of last year, the Department of Environmental Quality found that nearly 400 feet along an unnamed tributary of Mine Run had been affected by lot grading and other construction activities. Since Winchester Homes had no permit for the work, DEQ issued a notice of violation in September 2009. The company blamed the mistake on an error in a topography map of the property, leading to excessive clearing during grading for the subdivision. Winchester Homes, according to the order, then submitted a proposed compensation plan, which was deemed by DEQ to be insufficient. The company then filed an updated plan, which was approved in July. In addition to the proposed fine, Winchester Homes was ordered to purchase credits from the Blackjack Wetland Mitigation Bank to cover the wetlands loss, and prove that it has registered and identified preservation areas in the development. DEQ is accepting public comment on the proposed consent order through Oct. 14. To comment, contact Daniel Burstein by e-mail at Copies of the order are available at that address or online at deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/enforce Rusty Dennen: 540/374-5431
just pave 'em over
Engineers was supposed to enforce these regs. $20k, now that must have em shaking in their boots. Just the cost of doing business, not a real deterrent.
County to lift a finger against the developer destroying downstream wetlands with siltation from runoff. If Dana1 was actually able to get Stafford off its butt then all may not be lost and the tide may be turning against the Board's collusion with the out-of-state developers, but I think my story of inaction in the face of developers' abuse is the rule and Dana1's is the exception.
It sure did happen in Stafford - that's how I became involved in local government. It happened accross the street from me and my previous county supervisor tried letting the builder/developer get away with it. It didn't happen. It was hard fighting the establishment - but the fight was on and in the end the developer paid up to fix damages.
Stafford County would never take action to offend the builder
gods, even when they are notified repeatedly of ongoing
violations.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
