After weeks of contentious debate on a large housing development in the village of Elliston, the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors approved the project Tuesday night, with several board members saying it was one of the hardest decisions they’ve had to make.
The development is projected to double rural Elliston’s population.
The board voted 6-1 in favor of the 349-unit development by residential home builders Stateson Homes, which will convert more than 260 acres of land on the historic Fotheringay property into the mixed residential development, with 225 single-family homes and 124 townhomes. Several citizens spoke Tuesday, the majority of whom expressed disapproval.
The six board members who voted in favor of a special use permit for the project included Chairwoman April DeMotts, Vice Chairman Steve Fijalkowski, Todd King, Derek Kitts, Gunin Kiran, and Anthony Grafsky.
All provided comments ahead of their vote, sharing how difficult it was going to be to make their decision.
Fijalkowski, vice chair and board member for District C — where Elliston is located — said he recognizes the impact the project has had on the community.
“It’s probably the most difficult decision I have had to make on this board. And it is not because I can not make a decision, but because it has split this community in half,” he said, adding that he believed the developer had addressed all concerns made about the project and that there was a need for population growth — Elliston currently has a population of 855, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Several interruptions from the general public in attendance occurred during comments from board members and after the vote took place, causing DeMotts to bang her gavel and announce that she would ask for people to be removed from the board room if interruptions continued.
Board member Mary Biggs voted no, saying her concerns were about the number of the density.
“Here is where I have an issue. I could support this if it was not for the number of units. I personally think that the number of units for this particular piece of land is too many,” she said.
It was the second public hearing on the special use permit needed for the development. A second hearing was needed, the county decided, because of a procedural error that mistakenly omitted information about a piece of the property for purchase in a legal advertisement published ahead of an Oct. 13 board of supervisors meeting.
Nineteen people spoke Tuesday night, and all but one person were not in favor of the development.
“We’re just people trying to live our lives in a community we don’t want to be maimed or destroyed,” said Tim Thornton, an eastern county resident.
“This development is not going to preserve the rural character. And at $100,000 combined (income) to get a house, I can tell you as a teacher. Uh, no,” said Kimberly Gers, a special education teacher at Eastern Montgomery Elementary School, in reference to what’s been projected as the income needed to own one the homes in the new development.
The plan is for the homes to be built in three separate phases over five to eight years and will include construction of a recreational area, trails, sidewalks and public streets, according to county staff documents.
In favor of the development, Zach Milton said, “we need houses. We need options. We need to grow. We can’t just be the Blue Ridge Parkway that everyone wants to drive through.”
