Controversial development draws opposition at City Council hearing

By Alicia Petska

Published: November 11, 2008

A controversial development on Mimosa Drive continued to draw opposition from neighbors Tuesday when it returned to City Council.

A second public hearing was convened on the Grand Oaks at Boonsboro project, drawing two speakers in support and six against. A group of 30 or so stood to register their opposition when asked to do so.

Grand Oaks, a residential development spanning about nine acres, has been revised twice as neighbors joined together to voice concerns about density, added traffic and negative environmental consequences.

The latest round of revisions — made following an earlier City Council hearing in January — evidently did little to change community opinion.

“I see some good businessmen here trying to make some money, but I don’t see how that outweighs the concerns of the neighborhood,” said homeowner George Pabis.

“I can honestly say I would not have (made the same investment in my property) if I had known this would happen,” George Ramsey said.

Ann Kagey, a 50-year resident of the neighborhood, is one of just a small handful of homeowners supporting the project. She cited a desire to see improvements made to the property, which is currently occupied by a rundown old radio station.

“I would like to see this done because it’s going to be cleaned up, neat, with the grass mowed,” she said of the site. “We haven’t had that there all these years.”

City Council put off voting on the development petition due to the absence of Ward II Councilman Ceasor Johnson, who’s away in Florida representing Lynchburg at a National League of Cities conference. Johnson had previously expressed a desire to be present for the final vote.

Early comments made by a minority of council members were supportive of the project and appreciative of the changes made by developers — a shift from the tone of the prior discussion in January.

Neighborhood spokeswoman Shannon Brennan continued to hold out hope a compromise could be struck. She specifically suggested the development be limited to 20 homes and certain parts of the property designated as conservation land.

Those terms were briefly raised during prior council discussion, but not acted on.

“That’s a very reasonable compromise, if you feel this has to go forward,” Brennan told council members. “I know people will be surprised to hear me say that.”

The original Grand Oaks design called for 32 housing units. The revised plan contains 26 homes. It also eliminates one road and removes construction from the steepest part of the property.

The project will be revisited during a City Council work session Nov. 25.