Plan withdrawn for group home
Photo by Vincent Vala
NO GROUP HOME AT 8077 CONNER DRIVE: The Rappahannock-Rapidan Community Services Board has withdrawn plans to convert this house into a group home for adults with developmental disabilities. However, the agency is considering legal action against the homeowner’s association that fought to keep the proposed group home out of the neighborhood.
Shut out of a Griffinsburg-area neighborhood, the Rappahannock-Rapidan Community Services Board may leave the door open for legal action against a local homeowner’s association that is fighting a proposed home for adults with developmental disabilities.
Brian Duncan, director of the RRCSB, acknowledged that the vehement protests of residents were a factor in Tuesday’s board vote to halt the project.
“The RRCSB is a public, community agency seeking to develop services and housing for individuals with disabilities,” he wrote by e-mail. “A community that unifies in its objections is not an exclusive factor but one that is considered by the RRCSB.”
Duncan is also seeking the approval of the board to possibly file a complaint against the Village at Griffinsburg HOA with the Virginia Office of Fair Housing, alleging discrimination due to intellectual disability.
In a two-page recommendation on the matter provided to the Star-Exponent, Duncan cited the hostile environment that emerged when the RRCSB’s plans came to light late last month.
“It is unreasonable, in the presence of unified opposition, to pursue this programmatic course,” Duncan wrote.
Nearly 20 residents of the neighborhood voiced their opposition to the idea at last week’s meeting of the Culpeper County Board of Supervisors.
The plans called for converting a vacant home at 8077 Conner Drive into a group home for about six adults. The road is located about seven miles northwest of downtown along U.S. 522.
An RRCSB employee would have overseen the home.
Duncan told the supervisors last week that none of the residents of the proposed home have criminal backgrounds and that nearly all of them have been RRCSB clients for decades.
Responding to questions about alternatives, Duncan said that continuing to rent properties or building a campus of group homes wouldn’t be in the best interest of the RRCSB’s clients, because having them live as plainly as possible in the community is an important element of well-being.
The RRCSB, which serves Culpeper and several surrounding counties, has operated group homes in the area for about 20 years.
Duncan said Thursday that the financial impact of withdrawing from the contact was not immediately clear.
In addition to concerns about the group of unrelated people who would occupy the house, the residents also said the subdivision’s lake and a lack of sidewalks and lighting would be hazards.
While the county took no formal action last week, Supervisor Tom Underwood, who represents the district, said the RRCSB should not be faulted, because it acted completely within the scope of the law.
“I certainly fully support the community services board and their mission,” Underwood said. “But I did disagreed with the proposed purchase.”
Underwood said he takes issue with the proposal because it might violate established covenants that specify homes in the neighborhood are intended for single families, among other clauses.
He noted, however, that while the project might have impacted the business aspect of the area’s homeowner’s association — specifically higher insurance or possibly cancellation of insurance policies — the home’s impact on the neighborhood’s overall environment would likely have been minimal.
Regardless, the insurance and HOA governance issues are “a valid concern, and it may have been an unintended consequence,” Underwood said.
“I support the community services board having a home in the Salem District. Hopefully it’ll work out well for everyone involved.”
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
I am somewhat perplexed as to where Mr. Underwood stands on this issue.
From the Culpeper County Board Of Supervisors meeting of Sept 1st.:
“Actions have consequences and from my standpoint this is against the desire of a significant portion of the people that I represent. And while I appreciate a lot of the stuff that the (RRCSB) board does I certainly need to keep that in mind in the future”
“I certainly need to keep that in mind in the future” To me this sounds like a threat directed at the RRCSB.
A group home on Conner Drive wasn’t against the desires of a significant portion of the people Mr. Underwood represents. In fact, I would argue that a significant portion of the people he represents couldn’t care less about the Village Of Griffinsburg.
To me, it looks as if Mr. Underwood was leading the charge. Perhaps he might consider that “Actions have consequences”
In the evening meeting he goes on to say:
“I strongly encourage the (RRCSB) board to reconsider, if they do not I disagree with the boards decision making. I further disagree with anyone that executes that policy. I strongly, as strongly as possible, encourage reconsideration.”
But then he turns around and says
“I fully support the mission of the RRCSB. I believe they do good work.”
Perhaps he needs to keep that in mind in the future.
Many thanks to Channel 21 for airing the BOS meeting as many times as they have!
After watching the Culpeper County Board Of Supervisors meeting I was appalled at the comments made by Village Of Griffinsburg HOA Chairperson, Ms. Fry.
“I have seen group homes operated by licensed homes and homes operated by state facilities. There is a difference in the two. In state operated facilities the overall supervision, health and welfare of the client is often neglected. It is usually due to the lack of experienced care providers. They have to hire what is available to them at a given time.”
Remarks like this are insulting to those who are care givers of the intellectually disabled. The RRCSB-AAA is not a State operated facility and it’s employees are well trained, caring individuals whose utmost concern is the well being of the clients they serve.
Ms. Fry and other members of this ‘country club’ community, I for one hope that a complaint, as stated in the article, is filed with the Virginia Office of Fair Housing.
There is nothing flimsy about the concerns relating to the lake! #1 - Those living near the lake deal with the danger to their young children on a daily basis. The young children cannot be allowed to go outside and play without constant adult supervision to ensure they do not wander toward to water.
#2 - The HOA insurance can only go up to $2 million, which is not enough and means they would be dropped. If the HOA was dissolved, the individual residents of Griffinsburg would then have to carry $20m in personal liability insurance! Who will pay these costs when the residents cannot afford? And if they cannot afford the insurance, the “picturesque lake” will have to be drained!
I say “Shame on those who do not understand that the Griffinsburg residents are NOT against the disabled, but need to consider all factors. First is the concern for the disabled residents who might be harmed from living in an area without sidewalks and lighting at night, risk of not understanding the dangers of the lake, and not having access to local transportation. Second is the concern to the Griffinsburg residents who would be facing large bills for personal liability insurance or cost of draining the lake they so love.“
Shame on you Griffinsburg HOA and residents opposed. The flimsy argument of being concerned because the 5 acres would be too much for them to keep up or the picturesque lake is located to near the home or lack of sidewalks is folly. Its fine for single families and their young children and the elderly but not adults with developmental disabilities? You need to wake up and smell the bigotry and stereotyping here. This seems a clear fair housing violation and I hope they are sued over it. RRCSB should have pressed this further. This makes me fear for our society; compassion is part of the character of our country.
Emotions are running high on this issue and the community has not been given the full story! So far the articles have only given a one-sided view of the situation and the RRCSB has been unwilling to meet with or discuss the issues involving the Griffinsburg home. I too am a parent of a special needs child like one of the ‘protesting residents’ who is also the HOA President (since 1980s)! We do not discriminate against those with disabilities. In fact, there will be a Forum on September 21st to discuss the development of a Center for Independent Living (CIL) in the Culpeper area for those disabled residents (young and old) of Culpeper, Madison, Orange, and Rappahannock Counties.
Back to the issue, a few items that no one seems to realize or understand: 1) The home is located in an area without sidewalks, lighting, and access to public transportation. 2) The home is located on just less than 5 acres, which would require costly landscaping services that could be used for more important items/services. 3) This home would require repairs to the windows that were sealed shut by the previous owners and repairs from the flooding and resulting mold from water being left on by previous owners. 4) The close proximity to the lake that could be a danger to those with intellectual disabilities. The HOA’s insurance company would require an increase in liability insurance to $20m, which the residents of Griffinsburg could not afford. Without insurance the residents would be forced to drain the lake!
I’m all for these types of group homes, but the selection of this home leaves me wondering what Mr. Duncan was thinking? Are there not homes closer to or in the town? Why weren’t the Griffinsburg residents approached to discuss the intentions of RRCSB? Communication seems to be lacking for this entire situation!
Bring the RRCSB to Reva if the “fine” people of Griffinsburg are to good to have these wonderful people live near them. There are a few homes for sale in the Reva area that would be a nice place for the family to reside.
Try Riverbend Estates where I live to start.
This is total garbage that the people of Griffinsburg have shunned such a great cause. All of the opposing residents should be ashamed of themselves. Worried about your home values my a$$.
How disappointing not only that the BOS for this region couldn’t use his position to muster positive support for people with disabilities but even more so that as seems to be happening so frequently people have to resort to using threats and scare tactics in response to their concerns rather than taking the time to learn and respond with grace and respect. A blemish for the Culpeper community.
Advertisement