Tewalt raises specter of EDA ‘lies’ – Tederick calls for EDA closed session

Jennifer McDonald faces council in October 2016 as she sought town code exemptions to cheapen the cost of Workforce Housing Project development – only one councilperson opposed the exemptions, Bébhinn Egger, questioning McDonald here. Royal Examiner File Photos/Roger Bianchini

As noted in our lead story on the Front Royal Town Council Work Session of June 3, Councilman Eugene Tewalt raised the issue of code and permitting exceptions council granted to the EDA at the request of former Executive Director Jennifer McDonald in November 2016. Tewalt said he would like those permitting exceptions rescinded because the Town was lied to about who the actual developer of the property would be.

Tederick takes the helm as interim mayor of Front Royal

“We were told lies – it was done bogusly and it was never intended to be built by the EDA, it was to be built by a private contractor. We were lied to on numerous occasions and I’d like to see it brought forward to a work session to discuss it so we can rescind the special use permit to whoever it goes to at this point,” Tewalt told his colleagues.

“I think that’ll be a good discussion for a lot of us,” Interim Mayor Matt Tederick commented.

The code exceptions granted the EDA in 2016 included waivers on the allowable length of a dead-end road into developed properties and a dropping of a code requirement that a dead-end road servicing a certain number of car trips per day be extended to a second outlet point so that it is no longer a one entry/exit point road as additional development is sought.

The view down Royal Lane from the still undeveloped Workforce Housing parcel – single-family homes to right, apartments to left and commercial properties at both ends of road

Public safety was the major concern of Royal Lane residents who spoke against the exemptions in 2016.

“My concern is for the safety of those who are there now. Is there a demand for this type of housing or is it just to line someone’s pockets?” Royal Lane resident Charles Jackson asked council in late 2016 when it was considering the code exceptions McDonald requested to cheapen developmental costs, ostensibly for the EDA.

However, only one councilperson, Bébhinn Egger, voted against the exemptions. Egger said she thought her five colleagues were “putting the cart before the horse” in facilitating development of 36 additional residential units before requiring road improvements that even those supporting the request admitted would eventually be needed.

At the time there were 99 exiting residential units along Royal Lane, nine single family homes and 90 apartments. There are also three commercial buildings, including a daycare center and medical building along Royal Lane.

When McDonald requested those permitting exceptions in late 2016 council was told the EDA would be the initial developer and apartment manager. However it was later disclosed that regional developer the Aikens Group was a secret private sector developer involved from the project’s outset in late 2014.

The still-undeveloped property was controversially sold by the EDA to a believed Aikens Group associate entity, Cornerstone LLC, on November 28, 2018. The sale price for the initially gifted 3.5-acre parcel at the end of Royal Lane that the EDA ended up paying $445,000, or $560,000 according to the EDA civil litigation, was inexplicably $10 (ten dollars American). The “Workforce Housing – Royal Lane Property Embezzlements” are listed as a $651,700 loss to the EDA in the March 26 civil action filed to recover a minimum total of $17.6 million in EDA assets.

Meow – hiss, HISSSS

The EDA cat out of the bag, the interim mayor suggested putting the EDA legal situation and its impact on the Town on an upcoming meeting agenda as an Executive (Closed) Session matter of legal consultation with the town attorney.

“I really would like to see us give staff a bit of direction on what we’re going to do with the Afton Inn property. We need to figure out what the plan is for that … It’s just not acceptable – we’ve been left holding the bag because of bad decisions from a person or people as it relates to the EDA scandal, and it’s just not acceptable,” Mayor Tederick told his colleagues.

The Afton Inn redevelopment work on hold due to EDA legal issues, the now 151-year-old building circa 1868, is one again languishing across the street from Town Hall to the right.

“So the Afton Inn issue is one issue I want to discuss. And I want to have a clear understanding of what’s taking place with Town Hall – I still call it Town Hall,” Tederick noted of his initial verbal reference to the former town hall and former fire station building on North Royal Avenue. “The former town hall is deteriorating before our very eyes.”

Tederick was a vocal opponent of the Afton Inn-old Town Hall swap, appearing before council to aggressively argue against the move in 2014. However, it was a move favored by a majority of downtown business people who sought a way to bring movement to either Afton Inn demolition or redevelopment.

The old Town Hall building was traded by council to Northern Virginia developer Frank Barros for his languishing Afton Inn property in 2014.

The former fire house and town hall building is for sale, tho word is the price is ‘too high’ to pique Town interest on a first right to match were an offer to be made on it.

Barros had been openly hostile to Town or EDA overtures on the property at the head of Front Royal’s Historic Downtown Business District after council sued its own Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) over an exemption it granted Barros to perform renovations that would have made the Afton building slightly taller than the Warren County Courthouse across the street.

By town code dating to who knows when, no building downtown is allowed to be taller than the courthouse. Following that circa-2006 council’s overturning of the BZA code waiver Barros seemed perfectly willing to let the now 151-year-old Afton Inn crumble to the ground in front of everyone’s eyes.

But now in Barros’s hands, the old Town Hall, circa 1930’s, is sitting vacant if not exactly crumbling with a “For Sale” sign in front. The council has recently discussed whether to renew a first option to match what is currently believed to be a too-high sale price on the old town hall.