Livingston facility sent back to committee

A heartfelt plea about providing aid to disabled senior citizens likely saved a project from being denied by county supervisors after a lengthy hearing last week that pitted residents from the Livingston area against the developer of a proposed assisted living facility. 

A motion was on the table to deny a conditional use permit for The Oaks, a 15-bed assisted living facility proposed in the Town of Livingston before the developer, Chad Phillips, addressed county supervisors. 

“By the grace of God I have my purpose here on earth,” Phillips, the RN supervisor at Madison Health and Rehab said, saying he wants to have an impact on “seniors with disabilities for the duration of their life.”

“We have amazing plans for them,” Phillips said passionately. “We plan on customer service being the highest and top priority and some unique features within the facility itself.”

Phillips explained that 85 percent of assisted living residents live within 15 miles of their homes. 

“There are no options for these disabled seniors,” he said of those in the area, outside of in-home care that can run upwards of $10,000 a month. “I want to give an option for people with disabilities.”

He told supervisors the area is already short 30 or more beds and most places have waiting lists. 

“We don’t have the beds for these people,” he said. “Since when did taking care of our disabled seniors become so controversial. It saddens me to see the leaders in our community say disabled seniors need help, just not in this area. As of right now, where else am I going to put it?”

Phillips didn’t speak at the initial public hearing held right before the matter was taken up for a vote, instead allowing his attorney to argue on his behalf. 

District 5 Supervisor Paul Griffin said Phillips could have saved money on hiring a lawyer and spoken to the board himself before removing his initial motion to deny the project. 

Newly-seated District 1 Supervisor Casey Brannon, who had seconded the motion to deny the project, agreed with Griffin and removed his second as well, saying Phillips should have spoken to the board. 

Supervisors didn’t approve the project, though, instead kicking it back to the Mannsdale-Livingston Historic Preservation District and requesting they take action on the proposal within the next two weeks. 

The MLHPD previously denied the project in August, saying the information presented to the advisory board was incomplete. Up until last week they would not take the matter up again, which Board President Gerald Steen pointed out was concerning. 

Rita McGuffie with the MLHPD spoke to supervisors and explained that they met with the Phillips many times but the proposal was incomplete. 

Steen asked what exactly was incomplete, to which McGuffie responded with several items from a certificate of appropriateness to PUD documentation. 

“My biggest concern is with the MLHPD committee,” Steen said. “That’s where it should have been discussed very thoroughly with a decision made and put in the minutes. We don’t have that today. Out of due respect to Mrs. Rita…I’m still getting this ‘incomplete.’” 

Steen ultimately made the motion requesting the MLHPD meet and make a recommendation one way or another on the project so the board can make a determination on whether to approve the conditional use or not. 

In October 2023, the Madison County Planning & Zoning Commission approved the project 3-1. 

P&Z Board Attorney Andy Clark told supervisors the approval or denial from both P&Z and MLHPD are advisory and not mutually exclusive. That means, he said, the board could approve or deny the project regardless of the findings from the other boards.

Absent Phillips’ last-minute plea, aside from his attorney, the other speakers at the public hearing were against the project and asked supervisors to deny. 

J. Kevin Watson, an attorney representing a number of businesses and individuals opposed to the project, focused his argument on the deed to the property, which said for a period of 50 years it had to “meet the standards of the MLHPD.” Since the project wasn’t approved by MLHPD, he said that means the project should be denied. 

He also argued an assisted living facility wasn’t compatible with the restaurants and shops currently located at Livingston. 

Clark and Board Attorney Mike Espy disagreed with the deed argument, though, telling supervisors that would ultimately be a civil disagreement between the Phillips and the prior holder of the deed and that would have no bearing on the supervisors’ approval if they went that route. 

Baxter Burns, a resident of adjacent Chestnut Hill, told supervisors the facility doesn’t fit within the neighborhood. 

He said Livingston was an entertainment venue and older people in assisted living facilities wouldn’t enjoy the loud music. 

Greta Mills, a member of the Greaves family that used to own the land and added the 50-year requirement to the land, said she had a petition of about 400 people from the area opposing the project. 

“We have no objections to new construction as long as it meets the approval of MLHPD, which The Oaks clearly does not,” she said.