Mathews County supervisors weigh future of Hole in the Wall building amid lease, septic and permit disputes

Mathews County supervisors opened a public hearing and extended debate on whether to sell or market the structure known as the Hole in the Wall (also called the Seabreeze restaurant) at 384 Old Ferry Road on Gwynn's Island, and heard hours of public comment about septic failures, unpaid invoices and alleged permit irregularities.

The hearing followed months of disputed billing and lease correspondence between county staff and the building’s most recent operator, identified in meeting materials and public comments as Matt Casale. Supervisors discussed short-term fixes — including replacing failing septic tanks — and longer-term options such as selling the structure alone, selling the parcel, or returning the site to public water-access use.

Why this matters: the building sits on a small, waterfront parcel that residents say provides important access to county waterways. The county has paid repeated pump-and-haul bills to address sewage problems at the site; board members and residents said the continuing costs and unresolved technical and legal questions make the property a financial and regulatory liability for the county.

Most immediately, board members put new work on hold pending a court decision and directed staff to pursue engineering and cost estimates. Chairman Doss said the simplest near-term step would be to remove and replace two failing septic tanks and then re-advertise the site for lease; he also said the board should not sell any portion of the parcel “at this point in time.” County Administrator Ramona Wilson told the board the county had received ARPA and federal COVID funds to work on the property and that those dollars — $68,000 in ARPA and $15,000 in COVID funds — would need to be repaid to the federal government if the county sold the building in a way that violated grant terms.

Discussion and evidence presented

- Lease and billing timeline: County staff said they emailed multiple invoices on June 2 for rent, pump-and-haul reimbursement and flood-insurance costs and that the tenant responded June 3 disputing pump-and-haul amounts but indicating willingness to pay. Staff said they told the tenant the county would reply by June 20 while the county attorney and board leadership reviewed the disputes. An accounting analyst said she repeatedly tried to prompt a board-level response and was later directed to forward the matter to the county attorney.

- Tenant’s position and public comments: In public comments the tenant and several supporters disputed photos and claims that the building had been left in a severely damaged condition; speaker Jeff Valdrigi, who said his family owned the Seabreeze for decades, told the board he saw no mold or structural damage when the previous tenant removed personal property and urged the county not to sell any of the parcel. Several other residents urged the board to retain public water access and to repair, not sell, the site.

- Health, engineering and cost concerns: Multiple commenters and supervisors emphasized unresolved septic and structural questions. The county estimated continuing pump-and-haul costs could reach roughly $400,000 over eight years if current service continues; supervisors and residents said the tanks appear to be cinder-block construction and may be allowing groundwater infiltration and effluent loss. Board members asked staff to obtain engineering estimates; one supervisor said replacing the tanks might cost roughly $30,000 but cautioned that demolition and site access could raise the price.

- Grants and federal funds: County staff told the board that federal funds previously used on the site include $68,000 from ARPA and $15,000 in (pandemic-related) CARES/COVID funds; staff said those amounts would need to be repaid to federal sources if the county sold the property in a way that triggered federal recapture rules.

- Permit and contractor questions: Citizens and a submitted document raised concerns about building permits and the contractor of record for several local projects. The agenda included a proposed resolution asking the county attorney to refer potential forged or fraudulent permit applications (including permits tied to the Hole in the Wall property) to law enforcement. That proposed resolution was placed on the agenda after discussion but later failed to pass when the board voted on adoption.

Votes, directions and next steps

- The board voted to add a staff item regarding alleged permit irregularities to the agenda for consideration. A later motion to adopt the resolution asking the county attorney to refer possible forged permit applications to law enforcement failed on roll-call vote.

- Supervisors agreed to delay any final sale or major step until after an October court hearing that will address the lease status, and they asked staff to develop specific cost estimates for replacing the septic tanks and for any required remediation.

- The county attorney confirmed the county’s current position is that there is no effective lease in place, but that issue remains in litigation and the court’s October decision could change the record.

Public-safety and sheriff’s office statement

Sheriff April Edwards, responding to circulating claims about law-enforcement action at the property, told the board there was no law-enforcement “raid” and that deputies remained in the parking area to preserve order while county staff retrieved county property. “We never went in there and forced customers to leave,” Sheriff Edwards said, and she offered to make body-camera footage available to verify the account.

What remains unresolved

- Legal status of the lease: the judiciary timetable and litigation over whether a lease remains in force will control the county’s authority to relet or sell the site.
- The full engineering scope and final cost to replace failing tanks, remedy infiltration, and remediate any structural or code issues are unknown; the board directed staff to obtain firm estimates.
- The county must confirm whether federal grant conditions require repayment if certain disposals or sales proceed.

The board scheduled no immediate sale and will revisit the matter after the court date in October; staff were directed to return with engineering bids, clearer cost estimates for tank replacement and remediation, and legal options for protecting public water access should the county move to sell any portion of the parcel.