“I maintain that they didn’t delay the actual building during the life of the building permit,” Tomson said.
By: Lydia Crawley
The Parsons Advocate
Davis Mayor Al Tomson responded publicly to the accusations raised by a letter sent to the Town by resident and Developer of Davis Riverwalk Pete Johnson. The letter was read into the record in open session during the previous meeting at which Johnson was present. Johnson was also present at the meeting to hear Tomson’s formal rebuttal.
The crux of Tomson’s rebuttal hinged on his assertion that all of the legal proceedings occurred in the time well after the building permit had expired. In his letter, Johnson had said the eminent domain claims by the Town had caused his building permit to expire and made it an undue hardship to renew. This claim, Tomson said was disputed by the facts of the case.
According to Tomson, the petition to condemn occurred in November of 2023. “The petition to condemn, the Town actually started that November of 2023,” Tomson said. “Just before Thanksgiving.”
By January, the case had concluded with the case dismissed and a joint statement released, according to Tomson. “You had a court hearing on the 5th of January,” Tomson said. “By the end of January, we had a mutual release with a joint statement, which was the only statement that was supposed to be made in publications about the issue and I have a copy of the joint statement if anyone needs to see that.”
Tomson said that the case took place during a time of year that most people would not be building houses due to weather. “The proceeding basically ran from Thanksgiving past New Years,” Tomson said. “I will point out that most people don’t build houses in Davis in the winter because of the weather.”
In his statements during the previous meeting, Johnson had stated that he never intended to be a developer and did not consider himself to be one. “Pete, you made the statement that you weren’t a developer,” Tomson said. “You signed legal proceedings with the State of West Virginia where you said you are a developer.”
Tomson also said that during construction, two sewer issues had to be corrected at Riverwalk. “We had two sewer issues one in phase one and one in phase two,” Tomson said. “Both required correction action. “One required the sewer to actually be replaced in many parts.”
According to Tomson, the Town wasn’t trying to be vindictive, but was only looking after Town assets and welfare. “We weren’t picking on anybody in particular,” Tomson said. “We just want to make sure that the sewer that would potentially be the Town property are actually installed correctly.”
Tomson also claimed that there was an issue that involved the DEP involving the project, but did not elaborate. Johnson later stated to the Parsons Advocate that when he submitted his FOIA request the reason for the lack of information was that the Town had never asked the DEP for the exemption to a limit cap that was needed in regards to the sewer and therefore there was no information available to be accessed. “And then we had an issue with the DEP for phase two sewer,” Tomson said. “Pete filed a Freedom Of Information Act Request, which I think yielded nothing because there was nothing to yield.”
Tomson said that the building permit for Johnson’s home expired before the legal proceedings had occurred. Johnson later said to the Parsons Advocate that he had been under pressure by the town for some time before the official legal proceedings were filed and he knew that the town was trying to take the development by eminent domain long before the filings. “And all the things that I just mentioned occurred after the building permit expired,” Tomson said. “So I maintain that they didn’t delay the actual building during the life of the building permit.”
Johnson said that he disputed the statement. “I dispute virtually all of that,” Johnson said.
Tomson informed Johnson that he and his attorney should expect a letter outlining the details of the statement. “You’ll get a letter from our lawyer,” Tomson said. “To that affect to your lawyer.”