The popular Hole in the Wall restaurant on Gwynn’s Island was slated to be closed by Mathews County on Wednesday morning after Mathews supervisor Dave Jones, speaking during Tuesday night’s board meeting, presented fellow supervisors with information from an 11th hour engineering report that he said contained information regarding the building’s alleged lack of structural integrity.

That wasn’t the only bombshell that was dropped during the 4½-hour meeting. During a public hearing on a proposed resolution to reduce the number of members on the Mathews Planning Commission from seven to five, the commission’s chair, David Rollins, resigned his seat, but not before chastising some supervisors for, he said, putting their own interests and those of a small group of personal friends above the interests of the county as a whole. Other commission members also called out board members alleging such behavior.

Hole in the Wall

Jones told his fellow board members that he had received a report from an engineering company that pointed out significant issues in Hole in the Wall restaurant’s structural underpinnings. He asked Building Official Kevin Zoll to give his opinion of the report, and Zoll said the engineer had found that the foundation, footings and beams on the building’s additions were not adequate for the structural loads being placed on them.

“They’re not adequate for normal capacity,” said Zoll. “As a building official, that’s not what you want to hear.”

The report that was cited was signed by Michael A. Matthews, president and CEO of The Structures Group Inc. of Williamsburg.

Jones asked Zoll if the original engineering building plan developed by Bay Design was followed during construction, and Zoll replied, “No.” He said that, according to the report, the work that was done does not match the designs that were drawn up, and that there was no indication that the designs themselves were flawed. He also said, in response to Jones’s questioning, that the building is unsafe to occupy.

County Attorney Andrea Erard asked Zoll if he would be posting the building as “condemned,” but Zoll said he hadn’t had a lot of time to examine the report, which he received at 5:30 p.m., prior to the 6 o’clock meeting, and that the building would have to be “imminently dangerous” in order for him to condemn it. Instead, he said he would shut it down and post it as unsafe.

Jones asked whether the building official’s office has any records showing that Bay Design had itself inspected the completed work, and Zoll said it does not.

Jones said the building would have to be repaired if the county intended to keep it, but supervisor Mike Walls said he was against the idea. He instead floated the idea of selling the building to the tenant, Mac Casale, for $1 on condition that he move it elsewhere.

Supervisor Melissa Mason said that she would not want anyone hurt because of the building and that safety is the primary issue, but she also expressed concern for the people who work at the restaurant whose “livelihoods will be impacted.”

After repeatedly expressing concern about “how we got to this state,” Jones said that an investigation into the matter was needed, and he stated that the board should undertake the investigation itself. He said he wanted to have the former building official come before the board and explain why the building was released for occupancy, and Erard confirmed that the board has the power to subpoena witnesses.

The board voted 5-0 to investigate the issue, with members in consensus that the county would have liability issues if they didn’t take action after hearing the report.

Casale’s response

During a telephone interview Wednesday morning, Mac Casale took issue with the board’s action regarding his restaurant. He said the board had not had the courtesy of notifying him about the engineering report or their proposed action, and he had found out about it through social media. If there was something unsound about the building, he said, the board should have notified him before taking any action.

Casale said there had never been any issues raised with the building’s structure before. He said that the changes he had approved for the structure had always been to make it stronger, with larger-sized beams and pylons than required, and that when he had a roof added to the outside deck during Covid, Building Official Kevin Zoll had signed off on the work.

The two supervisors involved with overseeing the restaurant—Jones and Walls—had always raised issues about the septic system, not the structure, said Casale, adding that he had reached a tentative agreement with them recently on the septic and was taken aback when the structural issues arose.

Casale provided the Gazette-Journal with a proposal he made in an email to Jones and Walls on May 4 in which he offered to pay the additional cost of installing the NextGen septic system, including the balance of the equipment, shipping and installation. In addition, he said that if the NextGen system were to fail after installation and operation, he would pay the full cost of pump and haul as needed to maintain the system for the remainder of his lease or until public sewer is installed.

Instead of going ahead with that agreement, said Casale, he had an ABC agent call him on Wednesday morning to say he would have to revoke his liquor license because the building was being condemned.

Casale said the problem is that Walls and Jones “have wanted us out since before the election.

“They want us to have to sue the county,” he continued. “I’ve tried my hardest to stay away from that because litigation is the last thing I want. But they’re not giving me any choice. I will not let them falsely close us down and cost my staff all their jobs. It would be catastrophic.”

Planning commission

During the public hearing on the proposal to reduce the number of members on the planning commission, commission member Tim Hill told the board that the job of the planning commission couldn’t be accomplished as efficiently and accurately or in as timely a manner with fewer than the current seven members. He said members, who are paid a stipend of $25 a month, have ever-expanding responsibilities, including reviewing and updating the county’s capital improvement plan and handling an increasing load of citizen requests. He asked how reducing the number of members would serve the county and suggested that the commission should be expanded instead so more members could share in the workload. He said that Middlesex and Lancaster counties both have nine commissioners.

“Almost to a person, we are college trained in multiple disciplines of high tech responsibilities that require education and knowledge in fields necessary to accomplish the integral aspects of our jobs,” said Hill. “We have all completed the planning and zoning educational course offered by Virginia Tech.”

Hill questioned the supervisors’ motivation for reducing the number of commissioners, suggesting that board members had “brought personal feelings into this equation, nothing more.”

“There is no logical explanation otherwise,” he said, “unless it is personally or politically motivated.”

Hill suggested that the county needs to promote issues that will create a healthy business environment in the county “and not tear it down by sloppy, irrelevant, meaningless, self-promoting dialogue.”

Dee Russell, whose husband Brian serves on the planning commission, reminded board members that the commission is an advisory board with no power to make binding decisions and said that a smaller commission would limit adequate representation of county residents. She said that commissioners do much of the research and writing of documents that would otherwise be left to an already overburdened county staff, and she pointed out that Supervisors’ chair Paul Hudgins had complained recently that planning commission members have no respect for the board of supervisors, creating problems working together, and said that “we’re gonna have to make changes.”

“You do not get respect because of a position you hold,” said Russell. “It is through your words and actions that you earn respect.”

Rollins, a retired U.S. Navy captain, told board members that service with honor “means a great deal to me,” and he recounted his 31 years of active duty, 15 years of which he spent at sea. He said he had earned five commands, leading up to 1,200 men and women.

He said that several issues before the planning commission and board of supervisors had concerned him ethically. One such issue was the recent complaint about inoperable vehicles that had been brought against a supervisor’s business “where the action of the board was to change the ordinance to assist their fellow board member.” He said the action violated the supervisors’ own code of ethics.

“Most members of the planning commission voted to not recommend any ordinance change because it would recommend an unethical action to the board and I didn’t want the planning commission to be tainted by the issue,” Rollins said.

A second incident involved two supervisors who, during the commission’s public comment period, “publicly tried to embarrass and intimidate a commission member and even demanded his resignation,” said Rollins. “Their action was, again, a violation of their supervisor code of ethics.”
Rollins then charged that, because the commission member refused to resign “over a petty personal complaint having nothing to do with the commission’s work,” the board then decided to propose reducing the number of commission members from seven to five.

“The board members will then pick the two commissioners to leave,” said Rollins, “and certainly the unliked commissioner will be one of the fallen.”

As Rollins spoke, Hudgins gaveled him for time, but Rollins continued speaking, with Hudgins resorting to shouting to cut off his comments.
Finally, Rollins said he could “no longer work for such unethical officials,” and resigned the position.

Commission member Dan Hill then spoke, echoing previous commenters, saying that the reduction in numbers would not increase the commission’s efficiency and that the action was “a vindictive effort for some supervisors to remove people they dislike.”

“I spent my life in the military, where respect was earned,” said Dan Hill. “The actions of some supervisors certainly did not earn that respect.”
Dan Hill continued, saying that it’s important for the planning commission to respect all citizens “and not a small group of self-serving individuals who resort to personal attacks.” He said that for the supervisors to take such actions against commission members “just because they don’t rubber stamp the actions of the supervisors” is not good for Mathews County.

Commission member Doug Wilton expressed concern for the planning commission, the board of supervisors, and the school board.

“What I’m seeing—personality conflicts—should not be involved,” Wilton said. “If the supervisors want to decrease the number, make sure it benefits the whole county and not you or a small group of people … We can work together and disagree. We don’t have to get upset. We are grown adults.”

During discussion of the matter, Jones brought up an issue with the attendance of several commission members, saying that the board can dismiss members who have been absent for three consecutive meetings. He pointed out that longtime commission member and former chair Danette Machen had missed six meetings during the past year and said he had gotten this information from a letter to Machen that Rollins had asked Planning and Zoning Director James Knighton to draft. Jones then said that both Rollins and Tim Hill had missed enough meetings for the board to be able to dismiss both of them for attendance issues.

“That’s one of my reasons a reduction may be necessary,” Jones said. “When people accept these appointments, they’ve gotta take them serious.”
For Rollins to have drafted such a letter to Machen when he himself was in violation indicates that “maybe he should step down,” said Jones. He pointed out further that the board has to rely on the planning commission, “and if they’re not effective, we have to do something.”

Supervisor Mason said she felt that some of the issues could be resolved if members of all county boards and commissions were to participate in board development and training classes.

“Reducing the number from seven to five does not help the problem,” she said. “It will not eliminate the fact that people need to be trained and to reaffirm what a commissioner is … There’s a bigger problem that needs to be addressed.”

Walls criticized Rollins’s handling of a situation during one commission meeting, saying that a commission member who had spent over 100 hours doing research on the junk vehicle issue couldn’t get his motion on the matter heard because Rollins wouldn’t allow it.

“There’s a problem—it’s called not getting along,” said Walls, and Hudgins agreed, saying since the two boards could no longer work together, changes needed to be made.

Ultimately, board members decided that the number of people on the board was not the issue and voted against their own resolution to reduce the number. They did, however, vote 4-1, with Mason dissenting, to remove Machen and Tim Hill from the commission.

Later in the meeting, they appointed three new members to the commission—Harry Meeks, Donald Morgan and Paul Logan.