Clash on Courthouse Mtn.

Many say low-income senior housing is needed in Madison County, but residents of Courthouse Mountain Road don’t believe their neighborhood is the ideal place for it.

Although a plan to develop a piece of property along the road has already been approved by officials – it’s come back to the county once again with some proposed revisions.

And those who opposed the project in the past have come back to make their opinions clearly known.

About 40 citizens packed into the auditorium of the County Administration Center last week to share their views on the proposed Route 660 senior housing project.

But the majority of those who spoke at the Dec. 3 joint meeting between the board of supervisors and the planning commission went beyond just criticizing the project’s revisions currently before officials.

Many mentioned concerns about increased traffic, excessive noise and damage to the environment they believe would result from creating this type of development off of Courthouse Mountain Road.

But officials have heard these concerns before. Three years ago, residents spoke out against a similar proposal for the property, which officials eventually approved, to build an “active adult community” on the land owned by Carlyle Weaver.

A common thread among the project’s critics has been, and continues to be, an increase in the number of cars driving up and down the narrow, dead end road.

Entrance issues

In 2005, development representatives looked into using a road through the Madison Plaza (Food Lion) shopping center directly south of the property as the sole entrance into the development, according to John “Butch” Davies, an attorney representing Weaver.

However, they passed over the idea after the Virginia Department of Transportation said the shopping center’s road did not – and could not be changed to – conform to their standards and thus would not be accepted into the state road system, Davis said at the meeting last week.

In an attempt to ease Route 660 residents’ concerns, the developer proposed a gate at the complex’s entrance onto Courthouse Mountain Road. The goal of the gate, according to Davies, was to limit access into the complex and prevent its use as a throughway to the shopping center.

Although Weaver still plans to build age-restricted housing on the property, he is now planning to apply for funds to support the project through the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA). The proposed 60-unit apartment building would only be open to those who meet certain income limits.

The building, which would likely include both one and two bedroom apartments, would be designed and constructed by the Virginia United Methodist Housing Development Corporation, which has built other low-income housing communities across the state.

But receiving federal tax credits to help pay for the project doesn’t come easy. It involves a competitive application process where certain building designs are favored over others, according to Davies.

The developer has now decided to eliminate the gated entrance in the plans since, according to Davies, it is prohibited under VHDA rules.

But, even without a gate, Davies says the design of the building and road layout on the property would make it “impractical” to use as a shortcut to access the shopping center.

This can be done by including “bump outs,” or concrete islands, within the building’s parking lot, in order to prevent people from “speeding through,” Larry Fanton, a VDOT representative, said at the meeting.

Betty Camper – a resident of Courthouse Mountain Lane, which is off of Courthouse Mountain Road – questioned this concept.
“I don’t understand how you can make the road practical for some people and impractical for others,” Camper said during public comment.

Funding competitive

Planning commissioners Jacki Eisenberg and Bud Kreh both questioned the accuracy of Davies’ statement – saying they both had contacted the Virginia Housing Development Authority and were told that the department does not prohibit “gated” communities.

In addition, they say, they were told that the department does not require proposed communities to have access off of a state maintained road, another aspect of the development’s design Davies had said was required under VHDA rules.

The attorney said he had received this information from the project’s developer, and that although these design conditions may not in fact be required, they are suggestions that could affect the project’s chances of being approved for funding.

This statement was echoed by other meeting attendees who said they were familiar with the VHDA funding application process.

“There’s a difference between what’s allowable and what’s competitive,” said Lost Valley resident Chris Miller, who is the project manager for Aging Together, a local partnership that works to support the older citizens of the county. Miller provided officials with a sheet of demographic statistics showing the county’s need for senior housing although she said her organization has no position on this specific project.

Generally, only about half of those who apply for funding are awarded money, according to Bob Regan, the president of the Virginia United Methodist Housing Development Corporation.

Decision postponed

While some who spoke at the meeting called for reinstatement of the gate in the plans, many Courthouse Mountain Road residents simply asked that the project be built elsewhere in the county.

Some other residents and officials again pushed the issue of switching the entrance from Route 660 to directly through the shopping center.

Development representatives agreed to look into possibly modifying the entrance to the development as long as it did not reduce the project’s chances of receiving funding.

Davies said they might revise the plans to reduce the size of the proposed three-story building and its number of units due to concerns County Attorney V.R. Shackelford III raised about the density allowed on the multiple family residentially-zoned property.

The property owner’s attorney requested that the proposal be postponed and instead considered at the next regularly scheduled joint meeting with the board of supervisors and the planning commission set for 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009 in the auditorium of the County Administration Center.

Development representatives may possibly present additional information about revisions to the proposed project during the planning commission’s regular workshop meeting set for 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, Dec. 17.