Proposed rule change would allow Fairfax County developers to provide fewer affordable housing units
The Avalon Mosaic apartments in Merrifield have a few WDUs available. [Mosaic District] |
Fairfax County planners are proposing a new way to determine how rental workforce dwelling units (WDUs) should be calculated.
The county’s WDU policy allows housing developers to receive a density bonus in the form of additional market-rate units to offset the cost of providing rental WDUs at below-market rates.
Currently, property owners can charge rents for WDUs that would be affordable to households with incomes between 60 and 120 percent of the area median income (AMI).
The proposed change would allow developers to build fewer WDUs in a project but charge lower rents for them. That would help the county meets its goal to increase the supply of housing for people at lower income levels.
The Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on the proposal on Jan. 27. The Board of Supervisors has scheduled a hearing for Feb. 23. If approved, the new policy would be included in the county’s Comprehensive Plan.
In general, the proposal would reduce the number of WDUs in a new housing development from 12 to 8 percent of total dwelling units. It would also reduce the maximum household income eligible for a WDU from 120 percent to 80 percent of the AMI.
Currently, market rental rates without subsidies are often lower than the WDU rental rates for the 100 and 120 percent income tiers, so it no longer makes sense to offer WDUs for those households.
Variations in the proposed WDU requirements would apply to the Annandale Community Business Center (CBC), the Seven Corners CBC, and the Tysons Urban Center.
In Annandale, the WDU commitment level for rental units is currently at 20 percent and would be reduced to 13 percent. The 101-120 percent and 81-100 percent AMI tiers would be dropped. Instead, 8 percent of the units would be at the 71-80 percent AMI level, 3 percent would be at 61-70 percent AMI, and 2 percent would be affordable for households up to 60 percent of AMI.
A developer in Annandale need only provide 10 percent WDUs if all of those units are affordable at the 60 percent AMI level.
In the Seven Corners CBC, the recommendation would reduce the rental WDU commitment level for sub-unit A3 (Willston Shopping Center) and land unit B (Seven Corners Shopping Center) from 15 percent to 10 percent of the total dwelling units. The rental WDU commitment level for land unit C (the Sears building and office buildings on Leesburg Pike) would decrease from 12 percent to 8 percent of units.
In Seven Corners, the maximum household income for rental WDUs in those three areas would be reduced from 120 percent to 80 percent of the AMI.
A chart in the staff report on the WDU proposal compares current county WDU policy with the proposed change as it affects a hypothetical building with 300 units (not located in Annandale, Seven Corners, or Tysons).
Under the current policy:
- 12 percent of the units (36 units) must be WDUs, including the bonus units.
- 12 units would be for households with incomes at 80 of AMI, 12 units would be for households at 100 percent of AMI, and 12 would be at 120 percent of AMI.
- A developer could receive a 12 percent density bonus for meeting the 12 percent WDU commitment, with an increased bonus available up to 20 percent for a proportional increase in WDUs.
Under the proposed policy:
- 8 percent of units (24 units) must be committed to WDUs, including the bonus units.
- Six units would be at 60 percent of AMI, six units would be at 70 percent, and 12 units would be at 80 percent AMI.
- A density bonus of 12 percent may be applied for meeting the 8 percent WDU commitment, with an increased bonus amount up to a maximum of 20 percent if there is a proportional increase in WDUs.
The typical monthly rent in Fairfax County for a two-bedroom unit is $1,339 at 60 percent AMI and $1,575 at 80 percent AMI.
Does this mean we can bulldoze the horrible section 8 housing developments that does nothing other than create ghettos?
Can your pea brain comprehend that this article has nothing to do with Section 8?