Fairfax County: Residents push back on new housing rules
A planning vote on accessory living units is delayed to November 4 after neighborhood groups challenged proposed changes to parking and occupancy standards.
By Stella Brooks ·
Dozens of Fairfax County residents urged the Planning Commission on Wednesday to preserve the character of established single-family neighborhoods.
The hearing addressed a proposed zoning ordinance amendment that would loosen restrictions on accessory living units, or ALUs. These subordinate dwellings, which must include a kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, and living space, are currently restricted to lots of at least two acres if detached. County officials aim to use these units to expand the local housing supply.
Carmen Bishop and Casey Judge of the Zoning Administration Division detailed the specific changes under consideration. The proposal would raise the maximum occupancy in an ALU from two to three people. It would also eliminate the requirement for an additional off-street parking space. Detached units would be allowed by-right on lots larger than 36,000 square feet, a significant reduction from the current two-acre minimum. The allowable height for these units would increase from 20 feet to 35 feet, and the maximum size would rise to 1,200 square feet or 40 percent of the principal dwelling.
Tyler Ray, vice chair of the Mason District Council, spoke on behalf of 12 civic associations to express opposition to these shifts. Ray warned that removing parking requirements and owner-occupancy safeguards could fundamentally alter the neighborhood landscape. He cited a survey in which 65 percent of respondents wanted to retain the rule requiring the property owner to live on the premises. Ray argued that an owner living on the site has a direct stake in maintenance, noise control, and neighbor relations that absentees lack.
Ray specifically urged the commission to prohibit detached ALUs on lots smaller than 36,000 square feet within R-3 through R-8 districts and dense Planned Development Housing districts. He also proposed limiting occupancy to two adults and one minor to prevent an increase in parked cars on residential streets. The Mason District Council, along with representatives from the McLean Citizens Council and the Sully District Council of Citizens Associations, echoed these concerns regarding the streamlined approval process.
Supporters of the change, including several affordable housing advocates and real estate officials, told the commission that the county should provide even more flexibility. They viewed the ALUs as a solution for housing aging parents, adult children, and caregivers while maintaining the single-family structure.
Tony Sides, president of the Pinecrest Community Association, and Julie Strandlie, a former planning commissioner, noted that Pinecrest is a PDH-8 district with only two feet between homes and limited parking. They argued that ALUs in such dense areas would create management issues for the community. Sides and Strandlie stated that ALUs do not belong in these specific PDH districts.
Following the hearing, zoning staff clarified that homeowner association rules would supersede the zoning ordinance, meaning an HOA could still ban ALUs. Staff also confirmed that the proposed rules would not allow ALUs in townhouses and that a new owner would need a new permit if the property is sold. The Planning Commission deferred its vote to Nov. 4, with a Board of Supervisors hearing scheduled for Nov. 17.
