Brookside Restaurant owner ready to sell commercial property on Route 211
By Randy Arrington
LURAY, Oct. 21 — During Monday night’s regular meeting, the Page County Board of Supervisors set a public hearing for Monday, Nov. 18 to receive public input on a special use permit application to operate a recovery treatment center on Route 211 near the headquarters for Shenandoah National Park.
“I have been offered a reasonable price by a passionate and caring applicant,” Brookside owner Cecelia Castle told supervisors on Monday. Castle purchased the tourist site from Lloyd Wakeman in 1990. “They are not bringing in criminals… To say that people are in jeopardy is a farce. These gentlemen are just trying to make a difference.”
Cox Property Management, LLC is listed as the occupant of the property being sold by Brookside Restaurant & Gift Shop, Inc. The 4.5-acre property along Route 211 east of Luray is zoned for commercial use. The recovery treatment center plans to “use the existing commercial kitchen, as is, to be used by the residents to prepare their meals; the gift shop for offices and a common area for clients; the [nine] cottages for client residences; the storage and work building for support activities; and the stand-alone house … as another residence for clients.”
Luray law firm Janney & Janney sent a June 24 letter to the county planning department indicating that “the residential facility contemplated could support 41 residents per day, a staff of 10 persons, and one professional counselor, and food preparation for 41 persons per day, along with the ability to provide for six persons per month for visitation…” The site provides ample parking, with more than 50 spaces.
Restrictions included in the special use permit application dictate that the operator of the recovery treatment center “shall not permit individuals to participate in its programs who have been convicted of any act of violence…or for any criminal sexual offense…” However, those individuals may participate in programs at the site if their offenses were 10 or more years prior to applying, and they have completed probation related to the offenses.
Despite assurances that the facility will be under strict regulations and closely monitoring each client — including a provision in the permit requiring a security camera — some nearby residents still remain uneasy.
“We don’t trust what has been proposed,” stated Patricia Long, who resides on Pumpkin Hill on the opposite side of Route 211. Long also noted that “there’s a lot of shooting in the neighborhood,” saying it would not be a “nice, quiet place” for addicts to recover.
Long and Castle were the only two speakers to address the issue at Monday’s board meeting; however, the county has received dozens of letters, split between supporters of the Recovery 180 program that would be implemented at the site, and residents and local leaders who voiced their opposition to this location for such a facility. Long herself submitted multiple written comments to the county, including a formal “adjoining property owners comments” form (with her husband Tom Long) and a 38-page packet with various data from historical significance of the site to the impact on tourism. Another letter submitted was from Long’s three daughters, including Page County Economic Development and Tourism Director Nina Long. Letters in opposition to the plan were also received from Luray Councilman Joey Sours and Page County Sheriff Chad Cubbage.
The correspondence the county has received seems to outline the two sides of the argument — the need and benefit of such a facility, versus the proposed location. Opposition arguments range from safety for neighboring residents, to the loss of a tourist site along a major gateway to the Luray community and the Shenandoah National Park.
The special use permit application was first submitted to the Page County Planning Commission on July 9, 2024. After several months of discussion with the applicants, adding conditions to the permit, and hearing from opponents at a public hearing on Aug. 27 — the planning commission voted, 4-1, to recommend denial of the application to the board of supervisors on Oct. 8. Commissioner Catherine Grech was the only member of the planning commission to support the proposal.
Now, the board of supervisors must review the 242-page packet that includes the permit application, staff reports, agency comments, citizen comments, information on Recovery 180, site plans, and other data related to the proposal.
The board will once again hear from the public during the hearing scheduled for its regular meeting in November — 7 p.m. Monday, Nov. 18 in the Page County Government Center on South Court Street in Luray.
To review the information on the recovery treatment center proposal at Brookside,
start on Page 86 of the board’s Oct. 21 agenda packet.
•••
RELATED ARTICLES
Towns show strong opposition to proposed fees for animal control services
I live one mile from Brookside Restaurant. But the distance doesn’t matter, it doesn’t change anything in my opinion about having a drug treatment facility here. Like Ralph Nader said about the Corvair automobile, “The Corvair is unsafe at any speed.” Speed in his example didn’t matter. The opinion stands. But safety and distance aren’t the reasons I vote No on this one. For safety, the residents most likely wouldn’t be any worse than what we’ve got on the loose here anyway. It’s just, we don’t have to do this. There are plenty of other places in Virginia already that tend to these people and would be more than happy to expand their facilities to get government money for six months per head. Will there be a large sign outside explaining to tourists that nobody is housed there that has re-offended within the last ten years? Remember ‘, the news media likes to use the phrase, “there’s no evidence,” but no evidence means only that. I just unstopped a drain in the house. Anybody got any evidence I did or didn’t do it? These drug abusers are self destructive to begin with, not sure that can change, not sure that that they have enough shame to refrain from recycling free housing and food for six months to just chill out with, either.
This is my letter to the Board of Supervisors on the topic:
I am writing in support of the proposal to transform the Brookside Diner site into a drug treatment facility.
I am concerned that the proposal has been maligned through a campaign of half-truths and outright falsehoods about the proposal. Some have even engaged in a campaign of fear, making strawman arguments about what they imagine the proposal to entail rather than what it actually entails. They pretend to be supportive of recovery while maligning the people seeking recovery.
Further, while I fully understand that many seem to regard drugs and addiction as solely a law enforcement issue, it is not – it is a health issue, and so long as we as a society do not address the root causes of addiction, we are not going to make progress. To that end, this proposal is an opportunity for Page County to make its mark in supporting that progress.
I would suggest that there isn’t a person in Page County who doesn’t know somebody who has been affected by addiction, many of whom are family members – why wouldn’t Page County want to support that? It is easy to just shirk responsibility to other jurisdictions, but on an issue that hits so close to home for so many of us here in Page County, I see no compelling reason to do so.
As I read the proposal, it’s clear that the proposed facility is a secondary facility – by that I mean, it is a residential location for people who have already gone through a detox process, such as a sober home with programs to support the residents.
It is also a closed facility – ie, the number of visitors will be limited, and the ability to leave the facility without supervision will be restricted. These kinds of facilities are not high-traffic locations with big signs advertising themselves and under the proposal, the location will not stand out any more than a normal residence, as is the case with other facilities owned by the company. Anyone that understands the role of a sober home know that they are not places that wish to draw attention to themselves. The residents require privacy for the healing process, and privacy is what the Brookside Diner location offers.
Finally, when I look at this issue through the lens of my Christian faith, there is no doubt in my mind that this proposal is the right thing to do. The Bible is full of references to serving those in need, and there is no doubt in my mind that Christians have an obligation to help others. If Jesus was walking the Earth in person today, addicts would be high up on the list of people with whom he would engage in fellowship. The fact that residents in the facility will not exclude people from outside the county – an argument that has been used to oppose the proposal – doesn’t change. Matthew 25:35 speaks of those who inherit the kingdom as those who welcomed the stranger, and Matthew 25:45 drives the point home by declaring “what did not do for one these least ones, you did not do for me.”
I hope the Board of Supervisors does the right thing and supports this proposal and the zoning change behind it.
Chris: I’m very sure that if there wasn’t anywhere else for them to go, and we sent them away, then Jesus would pity us.