44°Partly Cloudy

Fairfax County Board Defers Decision on Kensington Senior Development Again

by Fatimah Waseem February 7, 2018 at 11:30 am 9 Comments

County officials have not reached a decision on a controversial plan to bring an assisted living facility to 11501 Sunrise Valley Drive.

For the second time this year, the county’s Board of Supervisors unanimously deferred a decision to Feb. 20 at 3:30 p.m.

At a Tuesday board meeting, Hunter Mill District Supervisor Cathy Hudgins did not explain why the decision was delayed. In January, Hudgins said she wanted to work with residents and the developer of Kensington Senior Development to tackle concerns raised by residents over several months.

Neighboring residents have expressed staunch opposition to the plan, which they said shoehorns a large, incompatible facility in an established, residential area.

The building, which would include up to 125 beds and 91 rooms, is more than eight times larger than the current child care facility on the site.

Rendering via handout

This story may be updated. 

  • Fact

    The county does not want this because seniors are more likely to vote against them.

  • 30yearsinreston

    Queen Hudgins does not do explanations

    • Greg

      She may remain mum, but let there be no doubt why she doesn’t want it:

      No “workforce” housing is included in the project.

  • Greg

    This is the second time the BoS deferred the decision. Not the second time it’s been deferred to February 20 (as the second paragraph is written).

  • John Higgins

    I expect this will burst some bubbles of negativity, but readers should know the background of the deferrals. Before the first board meeting, Sup. Hudgins visited the affected cluster and heard strong objections to the project from a number of residents. Based on that, she asked the board to defer to give the developer and the cluster an opportunity to work out their differences. When that had not been accomplished by the second scheduled board vote (Kensington made no effort to reach out to the cluster,) she asked for further deferral so she could a sit-down with both sides. Far from not wanting the project, it is was on the fast track and would have been a done deal by now without her intervention.

    • Factoid

      Thats the official version.

    • Greg

      Are you now the spokesperson for Hudgins?

      • John Higgins

        That’s rich. No, Greg, I speak for no one but myself. I live 75 feet from the property line of this planned monstrosity. As you might expect, I have followed the route of this project quite closely. Residents hoped to persuade Hudgins that this imposing development was was out of place and breaches the implied promise of the planning process. We failed and many of us still believe she is wrong on that point. But the first posts here got it terribly wrong in telling us the county opposes the project. Factually, it’s quite the opposite. It’s fine for folks to take their best shots at elected officials; not so fine when they have no idea what they are talking about.

        • Greg

          That’s fair, and thank you for explaining your side; however, I still, more so than ever, condemn Cathy Hudgins for not doing the explaining. She’s paid to do so and has a paid staff to assist. She’s failed and has missed yet another opportunity to educate and enlighten the ignorant. For shame.


Subscribe to our mailing list