Re-appeal of Atwood-Buracker construction dispute repeats earlier ruling

Buracker Construction attorney Joel Francis displays document to support his client’s case. Royal Examiner Photos/Roger Bianchini. Video by Mark Williams.

After a three-hour appeals hearing of her complaint about alleged building code violations related to construction of her new home, built after her old one burned to a total loss, it appears Kristie Atwood and the County Building Inspections Department, County Code Official David Beahm and the Buracker Construction Company are exactly where they were two months ago.

In May the Board of Building Code Appeals, with member George Cline, upheld Atwood’s appeal as to six specific code violations. However another 60 to 125 alleged violations were not upheld. However, it was later ruled that Cline had a conflict of interest due to past associations with the Burackers.

So at 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, July 18, as a second hearing of Atwood’s appeal of County building permitting processes began, Cline was an interested spectator in the audience. But his absence apparently did not alter the board’s perception as to what it had authority to rule on and how it would rule within the parameters of that authority – repeating upholding Atwood’s appeal on those same six code violation claims. Several of those violations appeared to deal with the attachment and base of a porch to the main home structure.

Atwood was represented by David Silek; Beahm spoke for himself; and David and Martha Buracker were represented by attorney Joel Francis of the Botkin Rose law firm out of Harrisonburg. Francis cited Martha’s treatment for cancer at UVA in Charlottesville and her husband’s supportive presence with her as why his clients were not present to tell their side of the construction dispute story.

But speaking for his clients, Francis called Atwood’s multi-faceted claims regarding licensing, a hired consultant’s opinion on 125 or more alleged code violations “more of a shotgun approach to a windfall” related to separate threats of litigation Atwood has apparently made.

Kristie Atwood and attorney David Silek do not seem impressed by any Buracker attorney evidentiary claims.

The hearing developed into many procedural arguments on exactly what had been alleged by Atwood and when; what had been done permitting or code violation-notice wise by Beahm in response; and whether or not the Buracker Construction LLC company was actually permitted to do construction in Virginia or licensed as a business in Warren County.

Silek called his client a victim whose home should have never been allowed to be constructed by an unlicensed entity.

Francis and Beahm countered that while specific Buracker LLC’s may not have been licensed, David Buracker the principal of Buracker Construction LLC was, in fact, licensed to do construction in the state. Beahm told the board that Virginia was very liberal in its permitting of intertwined companies or principals, so that his permitting of construction of Atwood’s home by Buracker Construction was essentially business as usual in the state.

Silek and Atwood, the latter injecting herself into attorney arguments at times, disagreed. Before his sudden departure from the hearing at 6 p.m., about a half hour before it concluded, Silek contended that such transferred licensing was not allowed by state code.

Following her attorney’s sudden departure from the proceedings, apparently due to conflicting scheduling, Kristie Atwood’s husband offered moral, if not legal support of his wife’s case.

Perhaps the only indisputable truth uttered during the sometimes circular three-hour debate came when Beahm told the appeals board, “Whatever your decision it will go before the state – guaranteed. There is no reason for me to argue anything more and waste any more of your time.”

For those not faint of legalese heart, view the legal wrangling and finger-pointing in this 2-Part Royal Examiner video:

Part 1 is the first 2 hours and 13 minutes of the hearing.

Part 2 is the final hour.