Historic Overlay District fails to gain sufficient community support
A proposal to create a Historic Overlay District in Holmes Run Acres will not go forward following a poll that found insufficient support. According to the poll results, 52.5 percent of homeowners opposed an HOD, and 45 percent supported it.
Mason Supervisor Penny Gross said she will introduce a board matter before the Board of Supervisors in December or later to repeal the resolution they adopted two years ago calling for a study of an HOD.
The staff can’t end the process on its own, Gross said at an Oct. 24 community meeting. “There has to be additional action by the board.”
Related story: Historic Overlay District proposed for Holmes Run Acres
She has heard from Holmes Run Acres (HRA) residents who want an HOD who asked for more time to gain more support. That would provide time to correct the misinformation put out by opponents.
“The community continues to be split almost right down the middle,” Gross said. Due to the lack of community support, “further work or a pause is not advisable at this time.”
Opponents of an HOD were concerned that expanding their homes would require approval by an Architectural Review Board, which would add another layer of red tape and increase the cost.
Those who supported an HOD believe it is necessary to retain the character of a mid-century modern neighborhood that has already seen a couple of original homes replaced by McMansions.
Related story: Let’s preserve the unique character of Holmes Run Acres
The HRA Civic Association presented a petition to their supervisor in 2019 requesting a study of a potential HOD. (At the time, HRA was in the Providence District; it’s now in Mason.) Since then, a community working group met with staff 15 times, and a consultant developed design guidelines suggesting allowable home improvements.
Gross said all the materials produced by planning staff and community members on the HOD proposal will be retained in case the community and BoS want to revisit the issue in the future.
The poll was open to the owners of 343 HRA homes. The county received 306 responses and verified 242 of them, said Grace Davenport, heritage resource planner in the Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning.
Some responses were unverified for a variety of reasons: They were from an address outside the boundary of the proposed HOD, they were not from the legal owner of the property, or there was more than one response from the same address.
If all the responses were counted, including the unverified ones, 53.6 percent said they opposed an HOD.
Related story: A Historic Overlay District won’t stop renovations in Holmes Run Acres
Another poll question asked whether residents would support a building height limit. The original HRA homes were under 25 feet tall. Current zoning allows up to 35 feet. A slim majority, 44.6 percent, would support limiting building height to less than 35 feet, while 42.6 percent said No to that question.
According to the poll, only 3.7 percent of respondents indicated they were not informed about the HOD proposal.
The poll also included an open-ended question that solicited comments. Planning staff shared a word cloud showing how often residents mentioned certain words; HOD, neighborhood, HRA, style, Fairfax County, and design guidelines topped the list.
However, the word cloud doesn’t indicate how residents feel about those words. Planning staff said they will publish all 135 comments and a recording of the Oct. 24 meeting online within a week.
25 responses to “Historic Overlay District fails to gain sufficient community support”
Leave a reply
A win for the silent majority and individual rights. Brace for the red landslide.
Can the “silent” majority please be more quiet? They are so loud and obnoxious!
good won donnah
LOL thank you, Dawna. The irony with these people.
Enjoy your McMansion, McM.
Your “silent majority” shouted down the HOD, attacked Fairfax County civil servants, and spent a small fortune stuffing neighbors’ mailboxes with misinformation.
Despite a lot of lies and mean-spiritedness, the “NO HOD” group pretended to be a bipartisan coalition interested in housing affordability, community, and indigenous rights .
Now that you don’t need our votes anymore, you’re cheering for the Youngkin/Trump crowd. Turns out “NO HOD” was astroturf all along – fueled by Republicans and landlords who want to jumbo-size their homes.
The “NO HOD” group promised us a real estate investment trust (REIT) to protect historic architecture without red tape. Funny that your group hasn’t held a single REIT meeting yet.
Hi There,
I’m the Indigenous person who was one of the leaders of the no HOD movement. I don’t know why I’m writing this because it will probably get moderated out of existence.
I’m a fan of AOC. I’m pretty far left. I partnered with people across the political spectrum to campaign successfully. It’s a great story of cooperation that I’d love to tell you about but this publication was not interested. I’ll submit it to The Runner, our neighborhood magazine.
We spent a very small amount of our own money on postcards and flyers.
We spent many hours of our own time going door to door to speak to our neighbors on this topic.
The first REIT conversation will be in November.
HRA is solidly left-leaning; precinct results regularly show 2:1 and more in favor of the Democratic candidate in local elections. Yet the HOD gets voted down 127-109. This ONLY happens if a large number of your non-Republicans, non-Trumpers, non-Youngkiners see the HOD for the misguided initiative it really was. So, yeah, the HOD’s defeat WAS bipartisan.
“Small fortune”? Nope, wrong again. This lib and others helped fuel and fund the outreach to counter the blatant misinformation, deflection, and institutional advantage the proHOD forces used to influence the community. The amount of money I personally contributed was incidental, especially compared to the average $5K-$8K it was going to cost EACH HRA homeowner to be professionally represented in front of the County’s ARB when pursuing their permits.
And it seems to me that if current landlords wanted to “jumbo-size” their homes, wouldn’t they have done it already, perhaps between rentals? The fact is, in HRA’s 70+ years, this has yet to happen.
“Lies and mean-spiritedness”? It was the ProHOD side that regularly engaged in these tactics, along with large doses of sanctimonious indignation, faux outrage, and allegations of borderline criminality.
The over-the-top, hyperbolic, loud and shrill responses of the ProHOD contingent contributed greatly to HRA residents turning against an HOD. The ProHOD forces were their own worst enemy, and they didn’t even realize it. And judging from your post, it appears to be a long road before our community will get back to the friendly and caring folks we were before the HOD debate.
The only miss information came from the pro HOD people. The other side researched thoroughly, and put reasoned information with references and links to back up their statements. The pro HOD people just called anyone with differing options liars and were dismissive and reductive.
Please do not drink the cool aid.
The neighborhood has spoken, and yet again they have said NO! Enough is enough! This needs to stop!
I agree. The impetus for this was pro HOD wanting everyone to bend to their design preferences. Having their own beautiful homes wasn’t enough.
Are we more united or divided now?
Be grateful for what you have, and stop trying to impose your will on your neighbors; they resent it.
Wonderful news! MCM are tacky…….
Only to those who have no taste.
In your humble opinion!!!!!!!!
The only mis information came from the pro HOD people. The opposition gave reasoned information that was thoroughly researched, with citations and links to the relevant information. The pro HOD people just called anyone disagreeing with them liars, and we’re reductive and patronizing. The neighborhood has spoken, yet again and they have again said NO! Enough is enough! I know some people are use to getting their own way all the time, but please STOP!
“Enough is Enough!” – check your sides; you have them reversed. Or maybe you’re just living large in a post-truth world.
At the community meeting on October 24, 2022, Supervisor Gross announced that she would be making a motion to rescind the authorization for the Holmes Run Acres HOD comprehensive plan amendment at a future Board meeting by the end of 2022 (exact date TBD).
Staff Presentation
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning-development/files/assets/documents/compplanamend/holmesrunacreshod/meeting-materials/10-24-2022-presentation.pdf
Community Poll Comments Received
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning-development/files/assets/documents/compplanamend/holmesrunacreshod/meeting-materials/comments-received.pdf
HOLMES RUN ACRES HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT (HOD)
Plan Amendment 2020-I-J1
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/plan-amendments/holmes-acres-run-hod
Very unfortunate. I have come to the conclusion that NOVA is very self destructive when it comes to managing it’s housing inventory, properties and and any intellectual sense of historic preservation. BTW what is that a MAGA organization? Scratching my head in disbelief.
I can’t wait to see the reaction when the McMansions start landing!
If this is important for the community the a binding homeowners association would be the path forward. However that seems extremely unlikely now that just under half of the residents tried to force the issue via government overreach. The issue has been weighed, measured and found wanting. Hope this is the of this for a while but I doubt it.
I don’t live in Holmes Run Acres, but I live nearby and often walk or bike through HRA. It’s a lovely neighborhood, and it’s sad to see neighbors tearing each other apart over architectural differences. Are there any bridge-builders left?
Bridge-building requires decency. Many neighbors are very interested in bridge-building and do so quite a lot! Unfortunately, there were so many very vocal anti-HOD people that spewed sarcastic, false and hateful remarks (in one email, to our whole list serve, one such loudmouth sarcastically remarked that a workgroup volunteer, a seasoned and retired architect who has personally worked on HRA homes, must be “taking crazy pills”), complained about workgroup and other types of neighborhood volunteers not doing enough or being in cahoots with the county (LOL), while not meaningfully volunteering their own time to actually better the neighborhood, spread outright misinformation by mail, door-to-door and even on NextDoor to scare people (e.g. a glossy postcard featuring an archeologist in a safari hat at a dig site, claiming that the county will want to do an ARCHEOLOGICAL DIG on your property if you want to build in an HOD…a point that was specifically debunked by the county). Many people have unsubscribed from our neighborhood list serve because it’s hard to stomach reading this stuff. It is hard to trust, much less build bridges with people who lie and berate others. And then when confronted on their BS, they denied any knowledge of it or take any responsibility for it. People aren’t tearing each other apart over architectural differences. Most people for or against an HOD aren’t bad people. It’s an extremely vocal and toxic group of residents (if you live in the neighborhood, you know who I’m referring to), mostly, but not all, anti-HOD, and a much deeper problem. It’s a reflection of a greater national trend of misinformation, anti-intellectualism and general loud-mouthing.
….he smugly snarled.
You didn’t lose because of anti-intellectualism and misinformation. You lost because residents voted “No” on the supposed merits of your proposal.
It’s funny how you only see rude remarks in the emails from the NO HOD side. I distinctly remember many reductive, arrogant, ill informed and rude remarks from you. I am not one of the people that commented often on this matter on the listserve, but I appreciate the information and SOURCES they provided to the community. People watched recordings of the working group’s meetings, held last year, where members of that group said the community would not accept the HOD guidelines, I believe even you said something to that effect. Why did you all not bring it to the community at that time?? Maybe a compromise could have been found. Instead you all barreled on in your high handed manner assuming to know what’s best for everyone. We are not children that cannot be trusted, and IMHO, the real problem with society is the idea that most of us are not smart enough to protect and value what is good in the world. Stop trying to force your standards on everyone you are not the only smart person in the world!!!!
The implication here being that you are an open intellectual, who always gives informed opinions in a polite way. I’ve read enough of your emails to know that is not the case.
You are referring to my email and I said “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills” not what you said. This was in response to the architect claiming language that I copied and pasted directly from the guidelines, was not in the guidelines (I also included a link to the guidelines on the county website so he could reference it and clear up his confusion). This was not the only instance of this particular person being unfamiliar with the content of the guidelines, which is why the situation was frustrating.
Now, if you’d like to get objective versus subjective, let’s talk numbers. There were large spikes in petition signatures, the nominal count of No votes, and the % of no votes relative to total votes on days when the Yes HOD people posted frequently to the list serve – especially when they got accusatory or mean. Put more simply: more people voted No and HOD sentiment was more negative during these exchanges. Let the data speak for itself as to who came off as combative and vitriolic. You probably know who I am if you live in the neighborhood as you clearly do, I am happy to share the data with you if you want to see it. A lengthy, yet incomplete list of names and statements made about anti-Hod neighbors:
Divisive
Disrespectful
Dishonest
Attacking
Berating
Twisting words
Deliberately hiding materials
Cherry picking examples
Conspiring with developers to get petition signatures (LOL)
Running up the numbers
Loud
Shrill
Unethical
Uncivil
Discourteous
Fear mongering
Threatening
Shameful
Unbelievable
Using “scare tactics”
Being “Disgusting”
Board of Supervisors Meeting: Nov. 1, 2022
• Matters Presented by Board Members
• Supervisor Gross, Mason District
RESCISSION OF THE BOARD AUTHORIZATION FOR THE POTENTIAL ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOLMES RUN ACRES HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT (HOD) (MASON DISTRICT) (11:29 a.m.)
Supervisor Gross stated that on January 14, 2020, the Board directed staff to consider the potential establishment of a HOD for Holmes Run Acres. The Board requested that staff draft a potential Zoning Ordinance Amendment and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and initiate a rezoning for the addition of the HOD, if approved by the Board.
In early 2020 a workgroup was formed, composed of community members and Architectural Review Board and History Commission representatives. Staff met with the workgroup 15 times over the course of approximately two years. Four community-wide meetings were held during the study: in November 2019, March 2021, July 2022, and August 2022.
The Holmes Run Acres Civic Association requested that staff conduct a poll to gauge the level of community support for the establishment of the potential HOD.
The poll revealed that a small majority of the community opposes the establishment of an HOD — 52 percent.
Because the request for a potential HOD originated from the community, but not even a small majority of residents support the concept, Supervisor Gross stated that she will move that the Board rescind its Board Matter dated January 14, 2020, for the potential establishment of a HOD for the Holmes Run Acres neighborhood.
Therefore, Supervisor Gross moved that the Board:
• Rescind its direction to staff to evaluate the potential establishment of a HOD for Holmes Run Acres
• Direct staff to remove this item from both the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Work Program and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program
• Direct staff to discontinue all work associated with the establishment of the HOD, as outlined in the January 14, 2020, Board Matter
• Direct staff to retain all research, commentary, and documents for future review, if necessary
Supervisor Palchik and Supervisor Smith jointly seconded the motion and it carried by unanimous vote.