Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Sprawlsville Manor

What do you do when you have a huge mansion in disrepair, no estate plan, no liquidity, and a whole lot of land? You could just develop the whole thing, but the owners of Doughoregan Manor may have found a solution that might be more palatable to the County officials. The current plan is the build a retirement community, consisting of 1,000 apartments in four story buildings covering 150 acres. The remainder of the property may be preserved in perpetuity, which is the gem in this plan.

Lack of diversity in housing? Check. Lack of diversity in residents? Check. Far enough away from everyday needs to require everyone to have a car? Check. Externalizing the costs of public utilities to the taxpayers? Check. Sounds like the zoning laws are operating as they were intended! At least this plan would result in some open space, albeit this open space would be in private hands. Welcome to Sprawlsville!

"An Erickson Retirement Community would require no more than 150 acres. That's about half of what we were first planning to develop. It's one-sixth of what we could develop by right. Thus the Erickson option preserves the most land, which is one of our primary goals."

Under current zoning, the family could build hundreds of new homes, though they would be spread over most of the property.

Their plan is to squeeze new development into a small portion of land nearest Centennial Lane, preserving the rest.

A retirement community also eliminates worry about crowded schools, and Erickson typically builds self-contained complexes that include medical care, restaurants, and transportation for residents who can move into assisted-living units as they become frail.

But a project with more than 1,000 apartments in buildings as high as four stories would also require public water and sewer lines, and the Carrolls' land is just beyond the current boundary for public utilities.

Ulman and Watson said yesterday they can see distinct advantages to the concept, but that they are wary.

"The only way I could agree to support this is if the rest of the land is preserved in perpetuity," Ulman said.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with you on this one. I also don't understand exactly why public water and sewer needs to be extended, unless it's because shared septic is not allowed (the County has gone back and forth about allowing and restricting shared septic over the last few years). As a TRULY historic property, I can't understand why the State or Federal Government couldn't do something to help fund the preservation of the property without having to develop part of it. I'm not well versed in historic preservation programs so I don't know.

Anonymous said...

But you missed the part that says the development would contain stores and facilities that make it more self sufficient so the residents wouldn't have to drive everywhere...

Anonymous said...

From what I understand of Erickson communities, they are a completely different type of complex than 55+ housing. They are typically Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs), just like we have at Vantage House in Columbia. They really are retirement communities and are not meant to be diverse in their housing. They are typically mini campuses that focus particularly on upper-age retirees.

It would be too much for a blog comment to write about how CCRCs are different from 55+ communities (blech!!!!!) which are different from even other categories of retirement communities. My understanding (from having a CCRC client in past years) is that they are a *really important* part of the continuum of housing options in a community.

I'm not speaking to whether this particular deal is a good one for the county, nor am I addressing the issues of public water and sewer. I'm just addressing that CCRCs are an important option to have available locally. To slam them for "lack of diversity" is missing the point of how a CCRC functions and how it provides value to its residents and the surrounding community.

FreeMarket said...

WRE- you and anon make some decent points. I still would like to see more diversity in demographics, but your point about how a community for older folks can fit into a more traditional neighborhood is well taken. This raw density of this project make it much better than many other uses of the land, and the fact there are some services provided onsite (primarily medical care) is better than nothing.