Supervisors approve affordable housing in Seven Corners, despite stormwater concerns
The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an affordable housing project on land owned by First Christian Church in Seven Corners.
Wesley Housing will build an independent living facility with 95 units for seniors earning 60 percent of the area median income or less. The L-shaped building would be four stories tall with a maximum height of 50 feet.
This would be the first joint faith-based affordable housing partnership in Fairfax County. It is expected to be completed in 2025.
The building would include 5,000 square feet for the Culmore Clinic, which is currently housed in the church and provides basic medical care to people who don’t have health insurance.
The church and the new building are at a higher elevation than Ravenwood Park residents who live close to the property line. Those homeowners already experience devastating flooding during major storms.
Stormwater has been a major point of contention during the Comprehensive Plan amendment process for the Wesley project – approved by the BoS in April 2022 – and Wesley Housing’s application for a zoning special exception.
Despite promises by Wesley Housing to do more than required to address stormwater runoff, several Ravenwood Park residents who spoke at the public hearing said it’s not enough.
Wesley Housing intends to construct seven stormwater management facilities on the property. Water from the Cameron Run watershed would be diverted to the Four Mile Run watershed. Underground retention facilities would store runoff and delay its release. As a result, less water will be directed to Ravenwood Park.
Despite all that, “the application falls short of the commitment to Ravenwood Park to manage all stormwater,” said resident Martin Machowsky. The plan amendment for the site adopted by the board in April 2022 said stormwater would be managed “to the greatest extent possible.”
He urged additional stormwater facilities for the parts of the property already developed with the church and parking lot.
Residents who live below the property also requested that the part of the building closest to their homes be reduced from four to three stories.
Like several of his neighbors, Joseph Dwyer, said the building will loom over the single-story home it took him and his wife – both public school teachers – 20 years to save for.
Although the building is 50 feet high, the rear of the building, which faces Ravenwood Park, would be just 38 feet off the ground, said Wesley Housing’s attorney Sarah Mariska. To reduce the visual impact, the design of the building was modified so it would have a flat, rather than a pitched, roof, she said.
Several people also expressed concerns about the loss of trees and requested a larger buffer between their properties and the new building.
Mariska cited several changes that were made to the proposal to address residents’ concerns: The number of units was reduced from 113 to 95, more trees would be saved, some of the parking would be underground, and, there would be a six-foot fence 20 feet inside the property.
None of the neighbors objected to having affordable housing in their community; their major concern was reducing the flooding risk.
Nathan Chaisson, whose home suffered severe damage from storm runoff, said, “serving the community downstream is just as important as serving the new residents.”
Barbara Wolf, president of the Ravenwood Park Citizens Association, said neighbors have consistently pointed out their concerns at dozens of meetings. “They have not made real concessions,” she said. “Our concerns have not been addressed in a meaningful way.”
A development condition added to the proposal calls for a group to be established to consist of neighbors, representatives of Wesley Housing and the church, and county staff. The group would meet quarterly to discuss any issues that might arise.
Several affordable housing advocates lauded the project. Rev. Steven Moore, senior minister at First Christian, said what’s most important is the need to provide affordable housing to older residents who want to stay in the community.
I absolutely understand the concerns of the Ravenwood Park residents. They have been dealing with storm water issues for years and the county has done little, if anything, to address it. I feel for them, I really do.
But, that said, the church and its development partners are now tasked to fix a longstanding existing problem. The new housing was already designed to improve the runoff situation, and has been adjusted to address even more of the issue. And yet, they have been cast as a villain for trying to provide for a need in the community, they have met repeatedly with neighbors, adjusted plans, downsized, and revised again and again. But somehow they’re the bad guys here?
The recurring theme I keep hearing in the comments on this blog is “we want everything to be fixed up and new, but we don’t want anything to actually change or be developed.” Also- that the BOS is responsible for never doing anything, except for all the things they do wrong.
As someone who has seen this project a number of times over the past couple of years, I feel the need to strongly refute the statement that the developers have been cast into a negative light. The community has been generally supportive of the goals of the development. Every time I heard testimony, the community would overall say they were supportive of the effort but they wanted concerns addressed. Because this was proposed uphill from an area that already has an overburdened storm water management system, the community has every right to vehemently stress that the work not add any additional burden to the existing problems with stormwater, and if possible, reduce the burden.
During task force meetings, the language agreed upon was that the entire site – including the existing structures – would be returned to good forested conditions. Marty is right in being annoyed that the developer and the county changed that language when it came to the proposal.
At the mason district land use committee meeting, we asked roughly what it would take to make the site complaint to the original understanding of the comprehensive plan task force language, and the engineer said that it probably would take one additional storm water retention cistern underground. I highlighted that since this would be going above and beyond their development work and would be going to address a very clear stormwater issue (in both quantity and quality, as any time there is flooding-level runoff the quality of the runoff is significantly degraded), they could look at getting any number of grants to defray the cost, and by installing the additional retention device during initial construction, there would be considerable labor savings.
That all being said, when one steps back and looks at the overall project, this has been a great example of the developer listening and taking to heart community concerns. The development will meet community needs for affordable senior housing as well as a permanent home for culmore clinic, and since at least part of the original site is being redeveloped, it should help with the stormwater issue. Glad to see it go through, despite the missed opportunity.
The stormwater issues in Ravenwood Park did not result from the church’s construction on a hill in the 1950s; the stormwater issues result from other, more recent construction that exceeded the drainage capacity of the area. The developer of this project has gone to great lengths to design stormwater controls that will help mitigate the flooding occurring in Ravenwood Park; however, the church and developer should not be expected to completely solve flooding that results from an outmoded mid-20th century stormwater system and which was exacerbated by a nearby townhome project.
While the article fails to mention it, the Supervisors recognized this reality. Immediately after voting to approve the project, the board unanimously instructed staff to investigate a funding mechanism to address Ravenwood Park flooding issues. This seems a reasonable outcome: the project will contribute to improving the area’s stormwater management, and the County will work to address systemic issues with the neighborhood’s drainage.
The neighbors should be congratulated for their success in leveraging the Supervisors’ support for our area’s urgently needed affordable housing to also bring attention to a situation that the county had seemingly not otherwise addressed adequately.
Interestingly these look like the units in Arlandria at 395 & E. Glebe. This was also an area plagued by flooding. Wonder how they solved the water problems there.
Looks like we’ve found the funding to dredge Lake Accotink. Any developers who chose to build in a way that contributed to run off – should be retroactively fined. Don’t worry. We’ll accept installment payments over the next 25 years. Which is about how long it will take for these buildings to get trashed out and neglected by owners.
Very SAD all that seems to have gotten the attention is the “stormwater plague”; and unfortunately “A Commissioner” does not live there. Having met and dealt with “the minister” and the “Wesley representative” as a neighbor home owner, I gave up. For years the dying vine has and is still in the process of killing their trees. We paid for such encroaching on our property with no help from the church, even while (unfortunately) homeless people were sleeping on the church side. Since being told that Wesley would be taking care of such (if approved) and not to worry. Again very sad, the church over the years has not taken care of the trees and the vines have killed the trees. Even asking the minister regarding piles of mulch/sod adjacent to our property; asking if it could be removed. He said I will check with–landscaping/gardeners (I do not recall what he called the person/persons) and here it sits well after two years–right in front of our gate (of course on the church’s side). Not nice, so good luck in believing whatever ‘you’ are told. Oh, another item, I asked the minister regarding ‘the garden’ that has been created, I mentioned it would be bringing rats and other animals to the site–nope he did not want to stop the garden. So folks that is another item, I believe Wesley mentioned gardening on the property also. Plus, very little was mentioned about the bus stop at Patrick Henry. Have any of the “Commissioners” driven on Route 7 to Patrick Henry and encountered the bus pulling over at its’ stop, while cars behind the bus are in the lane that ends. Oh well, again people only see what is written and do not actually live near by or at least truly investigate on a daily occurrence. And how many different names has this facility been given; check back, latest is senior living/affordable housing–we shall see. I pray I am not here when seven corners and baileys crossroads ends up being — slums; because in my eyes Mason District is letting it happen. What happened to a previous “Five Year Plan”, (who knows what it is now) Sears!! And Poor/Sad Seven Corners–So much could be done with this property–instead of “car rallies” along with shooting off fireworks after eleven p.m. — Oh Well.