Expansion of congregate housing proposed
The Fairfax County Planning Commission wants to make it easier to establish congregate housing.
They endorsed a zoning amendment on Feb. 25 that would allow congregate housing in certain industrial zones and expand the population served to include the homeless. The Board of Supervisors has scheduled a hearing on the amendment on March 17.
A congregate living facility is defined under current rules as a residence in a supervised setting that provides on-site support services to people with disabilities, people being treated for alcohol and addiction treatment, and recovering addicts.
The proposed amendment includes a revised definition that adds people experiencing homelessness. The amendment also lists other populations already served in congregate housing, including survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, or child abuse; youth in crisis; and individuals in need of behavioral health or mental health services.
The term “youth in crisis” refers to children aging out of the foster care system, runaways, and youth experiencing homelessness.
Congregate housing is less restrictive than other types of group living arrangements defined in the Zoning Ordinance, such as assisted living, independent living facilities, and group households.
A special zoning exception is required for congregate housing. These facilities are currently permitted in nearly all residential districts and some commercial districts (C-1 through C-4). Congregate housing is allowed in planned districts with a special exception or if it is shown on the development plan.
The amendment would allow congregate housing in industrial districts (I-2 to I-4) and additional commercial districts (C-5 to C-8). According to planning staff, this would allow the adaptive reuse of vacant buildings.
The proposed use standards would require congregate living facilities in commercial and industrial districts to be located within a reasonable distance of public transit, employment areas, and community services.
Oh good! Let’s make sure they’re adjacent to elementary schools, child daycare facilities, families with children, and County employees’ homes, and especially elected officials’ residences.
And, when you hear so much as a peep of a complaint, just remind the complainer this is what they voted for.
Once again it’s the empathy trap.
I’m thinking the intent is described in the last 2 sentences… all of the “adjacent” examples fit into already-allowed residential districts.
Some people would rather not know bout those in need. It makes them uncomfortable until it is a family member or friend. Then they want that person close to them to have every help available
Oh boo hoo. That’s the empathy trap we fall into. In this case it’s oh, me oh my, if we don’t put these poor folks in a residential area immediately next to our own 4 year old daughter…
Helping people in need doesn’t also mean sacrificing personal and public safety. And if it’s your family member, put em in your house and you supervise them.
So Democrats are going to hide the homless in taxpayer purchased houses
From the comments, it seems that most of you didn’t actually read the article. The current law/zoning ordinance allows these facilities in residential areas already. This amendment would allow more of them to be established in commercial or industrial, underused facilities. I would think that would make you NIMBYs happy, moving these “undesirable” people into areas where no one has to interact with them.
You didn’t read it. Redefinitions of covered people expands the populations living in your neighborhood. So, ignore what happens in the real world comrade and build a bigger sandbox so they can play with your kids, but I’ll protect mine thanks. NIMBY? That’s a parent’s job.