Residents oppose Elliston development plan for 409 homes amid safety and cultural concerns

The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors convened on April 14, 2025, to discuss several pressing issues, primarily centered around a proposed residential development in Shawesville. The meeting featured a public hearing where community members voiced their concerns regarding the potential impact of the development on the local environment, infrastructure, and cultural identity.

The first speaker raised safety concerns about the current speed limit on Route 460, suggesting a reduction due to frequent speeding and hazardous driving conditions exacerbated by flooding in the area. The speaker emphasized the need for thorough examination of the proposed development's impact on water runoff and soil disruption, highlighting potential risks to local homes and wells.

Paige Williams, a resident of Shawesville, passionately opposed the development of the Father and Gay property, which is slated to introduce 409 homes to an area currently zoned for agricultural use. Williams argued that such a transformation would drastically alter the community's character, increasing the population by 50% and straining public services. She criticized the development as opportunistic, asserting that it does not meet the housing needs of the local population, which has a significantly lower median income compared to nearby towns.

Susan Creasy Moffitt, a former resident of Shawesville, echoed these sentiments, expressing concern about the affordability of the proposed homes, which range from $280,000 to $380,000. She highlighted the community's high poverty rate and questioned the appropriateness of such a development in an area where many residents struggle financially. Moffitt also raised historical concerns, suggesting that the land may hold remnants of a painful past, including potential burial sites of enslaved individuals.

Josh Williams, another local resident, added to the discussion by questioning the vision for growth in Montgomery County. He expressed fears that the proposed development would lead to gentrification, displacing current residents and altering the cultural fabric of the community. Williams emphasized the importance of preserving the area's rural character and the connections residents have with the land.

The public hearing concluded with a strong indication from community members that they oppose the amendment necessary for the development to proceed. The Board of Supervisors took a brief recess before moving on to the next agenda item, which included public addresses from additional community members.

Overall, the meeting underscored significant community resistance to the proposed development, highlighting concerns about safety, environmental impact, affordability, and cultural preservation. The Board will need to consider these factors as they deliberate on the future of the proposed project.