It took Mathews supervisors only a few minutes at the beginning of a special meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 22, to make the decision to subdivide the county’s Historic Court Green, carving out a 21’ x 22’ parcel around the Confederate monument in preparation for possibly conveying it to Mathews War Memorial Preservation Inc. The vote was 4-1, with supervisor Melissa Mason dissenting. Those in favor were Paul Hudgins, Jackie Ingram, Dave Jones and Mike Walls.

The next step in the process is a public hearing set for 6 p.m. Tuesday in the Harry M. Ward Auditorium at Mathews High School. Mathews residents will have a chance at that meeting to express their support for or disapproval of the supervisors’ proposal.

A number of Mathews residents urged the board on Nov. 22 to rethink its proposal to deed the Confederate monument and the land under it to the private nonstock corporation.

Speakers pointed out that, when last year’s referendum was held to determine whether the monument should be removed from the Court Green, Mathews residents voted to keep the monument, not to give it away.

“We, the majority of voters, did not vote or agree to deed a piece of our historic courthouse to a private group,” said Sharon Dequaine of Gwynn. “If this is a decision to be made, it should be put on a referendum for all citizens to agree or disagree. It is, after all, our common property and not that of just five individuals.”

Mathews War Memorial Preservation Inc. was established by Bavon resident David M. “Sonny” Fauver, who is listed as the corporation’s initial director. No other members are listed for the corporation on Virginia’s State Corporation Commission website, although the member information section says the corporation has members. Fauver has been an outspoken member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, long urging the board to take the action it’s now considering. His wife, Susan, a member of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, urged the board in an August letter to transfer the property to a group comprised of members of the Lane Armistead Camp of the SCV and the Captain Sally Tompkins Chapter of the UDC.

The survey used to divide the parcel was updated from an initial survey prepared by Keller, Lewis & Associates. Supervisors Walls and Jones, who made the proposal to deed the parcel, had initially said it would be 18’ x 18’, or the size of the concrete edging surrounding the monument.

However, it was decided instead to expand the parcel so it would abut the sidewalk on three sides.

Mathews County Administrator Ramona Wilson said that a title search of the property was attempted, but that title records had been burned in the Richmond fire, so the paperwork for the subdivision was prepared without a title report.

Wilson explained further that, because the parcel being subdivided is less than the 10,000 square feet required for subdividing a parcel, a waiver was needed from the board of supervisors in order to allow it. That was the primary purpose of Tuesday’s meeting.

Wilson said that no public hearing was needed to separate the monument parcel from the rest of the Court Green because “It’s not a waiver of zoning, only of the subdivision ordinance.”

Under the provisions of the subdivision ordinance cited, the board may grant a waiver for subdividing a parcel where “it can be shown that strict compliance with the requirements of this chapter would result in substantial injustice or substantial hardship to the subdivider because of unusual topography or other situations or conditions which are not self-inflicted, or that these conditions would result in inhibiting the achievement of the objectives of these regulations…” The intent is to ensure that “substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured,” the ordinance states, “provided, however, that such variance, modification, or waiver will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of this chapter.”

Other comments that were made during the meeting questioned whether the board had followed proper procedures when it carved out the parcel, with Louise Witherspoon of Port Haywood saying that deeding the parcel would only benefit the entity acquiring the property. She said control of the parcel would be lost to the board of supervisors and future boards, while maintaining ownership “benefits the entire community.”

Molly Broderson read a portion of the board’s mission statement, saying that “in partnership with the citizens, the government of Mathews County pledges a civic stewardship that is fiscally accountable, socially responsible, and worthy of civic trust.”

“I ask how does your proposal fit in?” she said. “Does subdividing a small parcel of county owned land located in the very historic area of the Court House fall under fiscal accountability? Social responsibility? …What you are proposing does not follow logic or law. Shame!”

Peggy Newsome of Cobbs Creek pointed out that the Virginia Code states that one purpose of a zoning ordinance is “to protect against the destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas.”

“Our Court Green is certainly a recognized historic area,” she said. “Are these codes being followed?”

Sheila Crowley of Port Haywood said she was concerned about the board’s “lack of transparency in the governing of Mathews County.” She said that citizens haven’t been privy to the steps the board has taken to assure that the waiver is done properly, and she asked for evidence.

“Fair or not, the impression that some of us are getting is that decision making, public disclosure, and abiding by the rules are sloppy at best and willfully disregarded at worst,” she said. “There is no good reason to make this transfer. You will be shirking your obligation to be good stewards of public property for the benefit of a select and privileged few.”

In a letter to the board, Yvette Gaither of North expressed sentiments similar to Crowley’s, and she called for a referendum on giving away the monument and the land it sits on.

Sonny Fauver, the only one who spoke in favor of transferring the monument, said it was about “keeping the monument for all citizens into the foreseeable future rather than have it torn down as 73 others have been in Virginia.”

During the board’s discussion of the matter, supervisor Jones said that there had been no need for last year’s public referendum on the monument, that the board sitting at that time should have left well enough alone.

“All of us would like to entertain the idea that we could leave it as it sits,” he said. “That’s well and good if the monument were not under attack. We have groups that would like to see it taken down.”

Chairman Paul Hudgins said the monument had been in place for 115 years, it’s part of the county’s history, and that “people have a right to not like it, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to go back and change history.”

Supervisor Walls’s only comment was, “Exactly what we’ve heard here today is the reason we have to do what we’ve got to do.”