The National Capital Presbytery appears to be backing down in the fight against the Chesterbrook Taiwanese Presbyterian Church, after the church challenged county findings that part of the land deeded to the church was leased. At issue now is a parcel of land adjacent to the church, which the county and the Presbytery want to use to construct a road to the assisted living facility that will be built behind the church.
The Presbytery sent a letter last week to the church saying it is “grieved and dismayed over the controversy that has surrounded the use of the property” and wants to “find a mutually agreeable path out of this controversy.”
Y.T. Hung, an attorney for the church and a commissioner on the Presbytery, says the sole contention now is over where the new road will be built and which parcel of land is impacted. Parcel A contains the church building, Parcel B is a strip of land by the school, and Parcel C is the wooded area where the facility will be built.
“They gave us Parcel A and Parcel B,” said Hung. Part of the resolution transferring ownership over to the Taiwanese congregation, and which Hung helped negotiate, reads, “On Feb. 1, 2001, the Chesterbrook Taiwanese Presbyterian Church is authorized to use ‘Parcel A’ and ‘Parcel B’ property as their new church home with all the responsibilities thereof.”
“I think that’s pretty plain English. And English is my second language,” said Hung.
FAIRFAX COUNTY STAFF members recently acknowledged they had erroneously used the word “lease” to refer to Parcel B. Hung contends that the admission should settle the case, but both the county and the Presbytery refuse to state how they classify the piece of land now.
“If it’s not leased, then what? It is the same as the church building,” said Hung who worries that if the wording is not decided soon, the physical church itself could become subject to controversy if the Presbytery wanted to use it for another purpose.
Jim Williams, the director of communications for the Presbytery, claims Hung is wrong in his assessment. “They are authorized users. The Presbytery owns the land. At this point, the congregation is concerned because of the way the plans are drawn. The driveway is drawn on Parcel A, and they want it on Parcel B.”
Wherever the new road is built, Williams says that the Presbytery has the right to do it and that it alerted the congregation very early on in the process.
Another section of the resolution addresses this, stating, “Every effort shall be made to incorporate the Family Respite Center (currently located on Parcel A) into the Affordable Assisted Living Facility. It is recognized that access to Parcel C will be by way of Parcel B or other access over a portion of Parcel A.”
“What is the legal state of ‘authorized use’? Can they take land at any time then?” questioned Hung.
“This issue is not about the church. This is in the public interest. The whole of the public. The county must decide based on the affidavit, and the affidavit must be true and correct,” said Hung. The affidavit filed originally contained the word “lease.”
HUNG WORRIES that mistakes like this, which were corrected only after church members and residents in the area of the church raised a ruckus, could affect homeowners if a precedent is not set now.
To mitigate additional traffic that may result from the assisted living facility, the county wants a two-lane road lining up with the existing road. Making that happen would require using Parcel A or B, or coming up with a new solution.
Hung says the church has been willing to come up with a solution and to work with the Presbytery to find one that is mutually agreeable. “To our mind this is an easement. Not taking Parcel B, not taking away ownership,” said Hung. Taking the parcel, said Hung, “would establish a facility but ruin a church.”
Williams said it is actually in the church’s best interest to go forward with the new driveway now. “The engineers and the architects working on it say that if the church wants to expand, like they say they do, they would have to move the driveway anyway. VDOT [Virginia Department of Transportation] would require them to move it and line it up with Hopewood Drive, just like we are doing.”
THE PRESBYTERY wrote that “as the Presbytery leadership, [we] will seek the most productive way by which we together can act on the issues and concerns surrounding the use of this property.” The Presbytery initiated a meeting among all concerned parties, which will be held next month, with a professional facilitator present to attempt a resolution.
However, the Presbytery also stated that it intends to go forward with the project. “The Presbytery, as the property owner, does not want to halt or delay the long process by which necessary government zoning and planning approvals are being sought for the assisted living facility. But the Session and members of the Chesterbrook Taiwanese Presbyterian Church should be assured that any such government approval does not mean that their concerns and issues will not be addressed. We, as Presbytery leadership, covenant that the assisted living facility will not go forward without full and fair review of those questions and issues. The Presbytery will hear and will act on those issues and concerns.”
“This is because we are struggling that they sent us this letter. They see us struggling,” said Hung. “The Presbytery said they did not recognize [the problem], but now they realize and say, ‘It’s in our house. Let’s keep it in house,’” said Hung.
“Clearly, this is not something we want to see happen. When the congregation was given the use of the property, it was based on the assumption that if the assisted living facility was feasible, it would be based on sharing the site,” Williams said. He maintains the Presbytery has made numerous efforts to address the church’s concerns, such as making sure the new driveway would not impact the sign or cross in front of the property.
The congregation, according to the Rev. David Chen and Hung, welcomes the assisted living facility, just not the way it’s being developed. “This is a noble purpose. Everybody supports it,” said Hung.
“It’s never fair to say that this, that something, is the best use for the land in all cases. But it seems that this is a very good use of the land,” said Williams of the assisted living facility.