Planning Commission defers decision on affordable housing
After listening to residents’ horror stories about flooding, the Fairfax County Planning Commission deferred a decision on a proposal by First Christian Church to build 113 units of affordable housing for seniors.
The Planning Commission will vote March 23 on whether to endorse an amendment of the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, which is needed for the project to go forward.
The church, at 6165 Leesburg Pike in Seven Corners, partnered with Wesley Housing to build a four-story apartment building. It would include 5,000 square feet on the first floor for the Culmore Clinic, which is currently housed in the church.
Related story: More details emerge on affordable senior housing project on church property in Seven Corners
Both the county staff report and the Mason District Task Force formed to review site-specific plan amendments recommended the project move forward – with a more effective system to prevent flooding in the Ravenwood Park neighborhood, which is at a lower elevation than the church property.
At the Planning Commission hearing, Task Force chair Marty Machowsky also called for other changes to curb flooding, including reducing the size of the proposed parking lot and preserving the tree canopy.
Machowsky is skeptical of developers’ promises to win over residents. When seven single-family homes (the Reserve at Oakview) were built nearby in 2017, the developer committed to building a robust stormwater facility. The neighbors aren’t sure it’s working, and part of the property doesn’t appear to drain into the stormwater facility.
Since then, there were three major floods – in 2018, 2019, and 2021 – that cost Ravenwood Park homeowners more than $80,000 for cleanup and repairs, he said.
Ravenwood Park resident Nathan Chaisson told the Planning Commission he spent $50,000 and “lost the significant use of half of his house” due to flooding. It’s caused a great deal of stress and anxiety, and he and his wife can’t sleep at night during summer storms. “We’re getting 10-year storms every month,” he said.
“I’m tired of throwing away furniture and keepsakes and toys; I’m tired of ripping out carpet,” Chaisson said.
He’s talked to numerous county officials and spoke at many meetings about this over the years, but it wasn’t until the church proposed a Comprehensive Plan amendment that “the county took our concerns seriously.”
Related story: Mason District task force approves one development proposal and opposes another
Chaisson urged the Planning Commission to not allow the project to move forward until the existing stormwater problems are resolved. The existing system of stormwater pipes is over capacity and gets overwhelmed during rainstorms.
Several neighbors urged the proposed density of the project to be reduced to mitigate the impact on stormwater, loss of trees, noise, and light pollution.
“If the project can’t be scaled down, it’s not appropriate for our community,” said Barbara Wolf, president of the Ravenwood Park Citizens Association.
Machowsky urged First Christian to reduce the number of proposed parking spaces, which would decrease the amount of impervious surfaces. He suggested the church expand its use of shared parking with other nearby religious institutions. He also called for a focus on transit and pedestrian access to reduce the dependence on cars.
Michael Burton of the Planning Department said more details on the stormwater proposal would be revealed when the Planning Commission considers the church’s rezoning application later this year.
Related story: Mason Land Use Committee defers action on Peace Valley Lane infill project
Meanwhile, the Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services is expected to release a study on flooding in April, Burton said. A VDOT study on the entire watershed is due by the end of the year.
First Christian Church senior minister Steven Moore and Shelley Murphy, the president and CEO of Wesley Housing, spoke in favor of the project as it would help meet the county’s goal of providing more affordable housing.
“Too many seniors have to move away because they can’t afford to live here,” Moore said. “This will allow them to stay in the community.”
11 responses to “Planning Commission defers decision on affordable housing”
Leave a reply
This article does a good job of recapping the meeting. The representation of Ravenwood Park residents was noted at the start of the meeting as unprecedented in recent history. Mark Doehnert, also from the RPCA Board, noted the drastic change in density (from R3 rating to R30) goes against ordance to ensure gradual change when considering development plans. With storm water runoff as the main concern (and rightfully so), increased noise and light pollution were also voiced as concerns by the residents.
First Christian Church has been an excellent neighbor throughout this process. They have heard Ravenwood Park’s concerns and been very receptive and I trust they will continue to be. What has been clear to me throughout this process is that the county’s process for approving development ignores neighbors concerns and that the county lacks the planning capacity for mitigating the impact of development. The existing development that was approved did not uphold the developer or county commitments to mitigate the stormwater impacts of the development and Ravenwood Park residents have suffered monetary damages and the loss of use of their property. Three floods in four years is a nightmare for impacted neighbors. This is not anti-development NIMBYism. It is citizens holding our government and elected representatives to their word. Stop flooding my neighbors homes!
The testimonies of the Ravenswood residents on their stormwater runoff problems last night was as compelling as any I’ve witnessed. Navigate over to http://video.fairfaxcounty.gov/player/clip/2393?view_id=10&redirect=true and see/hear what they are forced to endure. It starts about 2hrs into the meeting.
It’s long past time that Fairfax County representatives got serious and put a hard stop on increased density until they can meaningfully address existing neighborhoods’ storm water runoff problems.
Improvements to the stormwater system and the development of high-density housing can both be accomplished. They are not necessarily covariant.
This would make both parties happy. However that is assuming that the real issue here is the flooding, and not an ulterior motive.
We need to hold developers accountable, but in the interest of planning for the future we need to get beyond the idea that this area will stay cul-de-sac’d forever. This requires communities to accept that there could be a new apartment building 150ft away from their house regardless if they like it or not.
Sounds like we will have more section 8 housing. Don’t we have enough? Really, I feel like I am living in the slums. If affordable means middle income, tax paying residents I am for it. But if its going to expand Culmore then I say NO!
“catboy”: I notice you didn’t say “a new apartment building 150ft away from MY house.” Clearly, you aren’t from the neighborhood in question, and it’s easy to sit from your perch and cast aspersions on homeowners that live at a safe distance away. Let’s see how you feel when impervious surfaces start to spread around your home, or maybe there’s no risk of that because you live in an area not threatened by stormwater runoff. Until then, please keep your cynicism to yourself.
While I do not live in the neighborhood in question, I am not opposed to high density development in the neighborhood that I do live in.
Look, I am all for rectifying this terrible stormwater situation. All I am saying here is that it is not necessary to nix development in order to fix these issues. They can both happen.
My cynicism is derived from the incessant excuses that homeowners in Mason District have for trying to shut down any type of higher density development. We desperately need to increase our housing supply here and this is an issue that goes far beyond any individual’s property line.
You cannot develop land in Fairfax County without providing stormwater management. It is not possible without a waiver, and the waiver categories are very restrictive. Any new apartment buildings will have stormwater management, both quality and quantity. As to whether you will have an apartment building ‘pop up’ next to your house, you’d have to live next to a large vacant lot that is not in a floodplain or other environmentally protected area, and it would have to be zoned to the required density. If its not, it would require a rezoning, which is a public hearing process that you would be informed of as an abutting neighbor.
More affordable housing is needed whether or not you want it or not. Personally I would rather it take place in an orderly fashion rather than outfitting a 3 bedroom house to accommodate 12 adults and several children and service vehicles, which is the situation on my street.
I am concerned the the “skepticism” expressed by Marty Machowsky did not fairly represent the recommendation of the SSPA task force which voted to support this important project after lengthy deliberation and the addition of very robust, specific, language regarding stormwater mitigation, tree canopy protections, and adequate screening from the adjoining RPA homes. The vote of the Task Force was unanimous. The stormwater recommendation requires development to preserve “a good forested condition” which is the highest standard for managing runoff — a standard which is conservative, measureable, and enforceable.
The concerns of the RPA are very real and very understandable. Nobody wants to be subject to flooding. This situation may have may causes — runoff from the new single homes, poor drainage in RPA, inadequate stormwater facilities, or climate change — and should be remedied by the county. However, the First Christian Church property is not in any way responsible for the flooding in RPA.
This project is critical in meeting many priorities of the community and the county. It provides sorely needed affordable senior living, provide a permanent home for the Culmore Clinic which meets the daily healthcare needs of our low income neighbors. It will be owned by the church (a great neighbor for 50-plus years and is being built by Wesley Housing a local non-profit well known in Northern Virginia for its first-class affordable projects and managing them for the long run. The project also provides an opportunity to require strict 2022 stormwater mitigation measures that were not required in the 1950’s when the church was built.
It is also important to note that this property is not in the middle of Ravenswood Park. It fronts Leesburg Pike in close proximity to four other multi-family apartment buildings. The location is well served by transit and within walking distance of shopping and places of worship.
This is a much needed addition to the community and the SSPA task force worked hard to see that protections will protect the interests of one of its neighbors. Moving the application into the comp plan does not mean approval for the project. It allows the project to move forward with designing a facility that meets all the recommendations of the SSPA task force and the County staff. Then and only then can the project’s re-zoning be approved.
Why does the parking lot have to be paved with impervious asphalt? There is pavement that permits water flow through. Why can’t the lanes be separated by trees?
I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the concerns of local residents in Mason District. Neighborhoods personally affected by rezoning may see things that outsiders and developers do not; they can give a broader view to counter the perspectives of people with vested interests who may avoid giving a full picture of the costs and benefits of their plans. Sometimes the people whose property is at stake are best placed to see the value in preserving it – not just its value to them, but its intrinsic value. I think the folks in the neighborhoods that stand to be impacted by this development should be commended for voicing their concerns. Those concerns appear valid, and rooted in experience, some of it harrowing. The flooding described by some residents is heart-wrenching to hear. It’s not clear why the county is putting so much of the responsibility of storm water management on the developer, which has no stake in the existing communities around the church. It really should be the county taking the lead.
This proposal seems to go too far. You can’t ignore the fact that the church’s single largest neighbor is the community behind it. As mentioned at the planning commission hearing, Ravenwood Park shares the longest border with the church, over 400 feet.