Concerns raised about dropping public hearing requirement for accessory dwelling units
 |
| An accessory dwelling unit over a garage in Kentlands, Md. [Montgomery County Planning Department] |
Members of the Fairfax County Planning Commission raised some serious objections to a zoning proposal that would make it easier for homeowners to have “accessory dwelling units” (ADUs) in residential neighborhoods.
The issue was presented by zoning staff at a meeting of the commission’s Land Use Process Review Committee May 7.
One of the biggest concerns about the new zoning change among commissioners and community members is that public hearings would no longer be required for interior ADUs.
More flexibility for ADUs
An ADU is a smaller unit on a single-family property that has components for eating, sleeping, living, and sanitation. Under the current regulations, at least one occupant of an ADU must be age 55 or older or have a disability. The proposed zoning change would allow anyone to live in an ADU.
There are two types of ADUs: inside an existing building and as a separate detached structure.
Under current rules for an interior ADU, a homeowner has to request a special permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), which calls for a public hearing. The proposed zoning change would allow a homeowner to apply for an administrative permit, which doesn’t require a public hearing.
Currently, an interior ADU can be up to 35 percent of the main dwelling unit’s space. The proposed change would set a maximum size of 1,200 square feet.
Detached ADUs would also be limited to 1,200 square feet. They would still require a BZA hearing, and the minimum lot size of two acres would be retained.
The ADU changes are part of the Department of Planning and Development’s multiyear effort, known as zMod, to modernize and update the county’s zoning ordinance. A public hearing on the proposed ADU changes hasn’t been scheduled yet by the Planning Commission. Members of the public can take a survey on ADUs here.
A stress on single-family neighborhoods
At the land use committee meeting, commissioner Phillip Niedzielski-Eichner (Providence) raised objections that if ADUs are clustered in a single neighborhood, they could become “a catalyst for further degradation of the neighborhood.” He said they could also lead to lower property values and create parking problems.
If ADUs are designed to increase affordable housing units, they would have a minimal impact, Niedzielski-Eichner said.
Planning Commission chair Peter Murphy (Springfield) and commissioners Julie Strandlie (Mason) and Andres Jimenez (an at-large member who lives in Mason District) called for more opportunities for community input.
“This deserves a lot more analysis,” Murphy said. Commissioners John Ulfelder (Dranesville), Timothy Sargeant (at-large), and Mary Cortina (Braddock) also said they have problems with the ADU ordinance.
“What is the problem this is trying to solve?” Cortina asked. The previous ordinance was aimed at providing housing for the elderly and people with disabilities.
This proposal doesn’t address any of the goals in the county’s strategic plan for affordable housing, Cortina said. The strategic plan says the biggest need is for low-income people with children. ADUs are restricted to two occupants and aren’t large enough to serve families.
The Mason District Council of Community Associations opposes the changes to ADUs as being “detrimental to the welfare of single-family home communities.”
Public input is critical
Former planning commissioner James Hart told the Annandale Blog it’s important to retain the requirement for a public hearing.
“A case-by-case review allows the neighbors to comment on each case,” Hart said.
By not limiting ADUs to people 55+ and the disabled, “you will get younger, healthier people with kids who will drive more, he said. That puts a stress on parking and schools.
He called ADUs “a simplistic solution to a trendy topic,” noting that there’s a lot of interest in doing something about affordable housing.
Related story: Fairfax County proposes more flexibility for home-based businesses and accessory dwellings
Removing the requirement for public hearings for interior ADUs would streamline the review process, Hart said, but that means residents won’t have an opportunity to speak and officials “won’t have to listen to a lot of complaints.”
Hart believes the stress for “streamlining” the review process for zoning issues stems from the Gartner report, in which a consultant called for speeding up approval of development processes.
“Streamlining is generally a code word for speeding up approvals at the expense of all that pesky, annoying, expensive citizen input,” he said.
“Eliminating public hearings would seem to me directly contrary to facilitating citizen input. “Why would you eliminate citizen input on something that directly affects neighbors? We have to be very careful about squeezing citizens out.”
Hart also opposed the practice of having controversial topics, like ADUs, addressed by county officials in virtual meetings, when many citizens don’t know this is happening and don’t have an opportunity to provide well-informed input.
That results in “less transparency, less accountability, and less citizen participation,” Hart said. “Citizen groups aren’t meeting now and people don’t know what’s happening.”
4 responses to “Concerns raised about dropping public hearing requirement for accessory dwelling units”
Leave a reply
This is quite disappointing. We already have many homes in Mason district with multiple families, even though the houses are supposed to be single family dwellings. The parking on my street is already crazy. To add a way to "legally" allow for this is not fair to the tax paying citizens who own their homes and can't even park on their streets. At least the commissioner of Providence is trying to stand up for better looking neighborhoods.
It seems that our supervisors only care about packing in more people in the guise of "affordable housing". "They would have a minimal impact," Niedzielski-Eichner said. Are they serious? How about parking, traffic, people constantly moving in and out (just like we see in many homes now in Mason District) and devaluing the neighborhood with ugly attachments to houses? Have you been to cities which seemingly have no rules at all for housing? There are some areas in those cities which are such a blight on the neighborhood that it is difficult to imagine our neighborhoods looking like that. Please stop this senseless change.
Don't know if we'll ever get a chance to comment at a hearing for the ADU (duplex) built on Summit in Parklawn. The permit was approved for building with a wet bar in one side of the house (the two sides are connected by a hallway behind the three car garage). There was a sign up for a BZA hearing until all hearings were cancelled – but the homeowner is applying for an ADU so that they can build a kitchen instead of the wet bar. The residents are to be the homeowners parents, but there is no way that the county can track this if it changes before 5 years are up (the allowable time frame for an ADU and must be renewed every 5 years) or a sale of the house to another buyer. This leaves the burden on the community to complain to the very small, very overworked code enforcement folks. Also creates bad feelings between neighbors. The proposed changes, while purportedly for affordable housing reasons, mean that essentially anything goes since there is no real meaningful enforcement. One of the ideas was that this was supposed to allow what is already happening with some folks who already rent out rooms/part of their homes and have added kitchens, etc. How are they going to enforce things if more than 2 people live there – see above about making the neighbors file complaints. It's just bad policy and I'm glad at least SOME supervisors can understand this is a bad idea that merits input, for sure. Government by the people, for the people, not the ease of administration – sorry.
I'm heartened that at least a few members of the Planning Commission are voicing concerns. However, I suspect the BoS will do everything they can to push this forward. The goal of creating more affordable housing is laudable, however, attempting to retrofit SFH neighborhoods is not the answer. If the BoS was serious about the affordable housing problem, then they would rescind the short-term lodging regulation and press developers to increase affordable housing near metro stations and other high-density areas. But, they won't. The loosening of the ADU regs will lead to increased traffic, pollution, parking, and overcrowding in SFH neighborhoods (esp. non-HOAs).
Please folks, take the survey at https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/zmod. Make your voice heard.
And, while the attention may be on the ADU reg, the proposed revisions to the home-based business regulations are concerning. The draft changes (i) eliminate the non-exhaustive list of permissible home-based business, (ii) allow customers/clients for all permissible home-based business, (iii) extend hours of operation for employees of the business, and (iv) allow goods not produced on premises to be sold on the premises (think: businesses engaged in the resale of goods purchased elsewhere; a quasi brick and mortar business next door).