Planning Commission advances multifamily proposal in Willow Run neighborhood
The Fairfax County Planning Commission voted June 4 to recommend that a nomination for a multifamily housing project next to the Willow Run neighborhood in Annandale be added to the Comprehensive Plan Work Program.
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to adopt a work program on June 10.
The proposed project has generated a huge number of objections from nearby residents, who say it is way to dense for the property, which borders a neighborhood with single-family homes and narrow roads.
The property owner, George Hong, submitted a Site-Specific Plan Amendment for a five-story apartment building with 186 units on the site of Pro Computers and a garden center at 6675 Little River Turnpike.
Related story: Viewpoint: The Willow Run project should not go forward
At the June 4 meeting, commissioner Alis Wang (Mason) put forth an amendment, which was adopted, recommending the Willow Run nomination advance as a Tier 3 project and to reduce the number of units.
“The density proposed by this nomination is more intense than is appropriate for this site. However, it offers an opportunity to consider the site’s long-term future,” Wang said.
Wang’s motion calls for the project to be considered for multifamily housing with a range of 75 to 125 units with neighborhood-serving retail or townhomes.
Wang said, “The proposed density and development concept should be further refined through nominator engagement with the community.”
The motion recommends the evaluation of the nomination to include: (1) analysis of the feasibility of adding a stringent stormwater management control system; (2) analysis of the impact on traffic on neighboring streets, pedestrian safety, and parking; (3) full compliance with open space and parks requirements; and (4) appropriate buffering and transitional screening.
In 2023, the Planning Commission rejected Hong’s nomination for a multifamily building on this site with 109 units.
“Some might argue that the nomination for this site was rejected a few years ago, so why is the Planning Commission even revisiting this?” Wang said. “The composition of the Planning Commission is very different from a few years ago, with many new members, myself included, coming on board since then.”
“We also have very different economic conditions,” she said. “So it makes sense for the current commission to take a fresh look at this rather than just doing what the previous commission did.”
Related story: Planning Commission agrees to consider plan amendment nominations
The Planning Commission designates SSPA nominations as Tier 1, 2, or 3.
Classifying this nomination as Tier 3 means it has lots of issues, Wang said. “The developer will have to put in the work and show that they’re serious about doing something realistic on the site before they proceed further.”
“If we just flat out reject the nomination, the site will continue to sit in an underutilized state when anyone can see it has potential for redevelopment,” she said.
Wang’s nomination was passed 8-4.
Alyssa Batchelor-Causey (Dranesville), who opposed the motion, said, “It’s important for the Planning Commission to remain consistent.”
The density range considered now is above what was rejected in 2023, she said. “It’s time for the nominator to go back to the drawing board on this one and come back with a nomination that makes a little bit more sense for the location, reach out to the community, and come back in the next SSPA process.”
John Carter (Hunter Mill), who voted against the motion, said, “We have to be careful about making changes in something that has already been decided. That does not build trust in county government.”
James Thomas (Springfield) and Chris Landgraf (Franconia) also voted against the motion.
Commission Chair Phillip Niedzielski-Eichner (at-large) voted in favor of Wang’s motion, acknowledging that the nominator “needs to reach out to the community in a meaningful way.”
One of the complaints by Willow Run residents is that the nominator didn’t attend community meetings on the proposal or respond to residents’ concerns.
Following the vote to modify the nomination, the commission voted 8-4 to recommend that it be added to the work program.
The Willow Run nomination was one of five nominations countywide that were considered separately. The other nominations were recommended for approval in an omnibus motion.
One other nomination in Mason District was singled out for separate discussion – a proposal for additional affordable housing at Strawbridge Square in Lincolnia.
Batchelor-Causey requested that the project be removed from the omnibus motion because of concerns about displacing residents from what is already an affordable community.
The nominator proposed bulldozing some of that housing and replacing it “without a plan for potential displacement and without consulting the residents that live there,” she said. “That is deeply concerning to me.”
The Planning Commission rejected that motion and then approved a motion to add the Strawbridge Square proposal to the work program as a Tier 3 project.
22 responses to “Planning Commission advances multifamily proposal in Willow Run neighborhood”
Leave a reply
The Willow Run and adjacent neighborhoods, along with the Planning Staff rejected this nomination and the smaller 2023 previous one, on concerns of incompatible density, traffic, pedestrian safety, storm water management, to name a few.
Instead of rejecting the nomination altogether as they have in the past, they allowed it to live another day to negotiate under Tier 3, for the largest number of units that the developer may get away with, at the expense of the neighbors.
Commissioner Wang cited in her remarks that “Some might argue that the nomination for this site was rejected a few years ago, so why is the Planning Commission even revisiting this?. The composition of the Planning Commission is very different from a few years ago, with many new members, myself included, coming on board since then.”
That is very disturbing, as the negative realities for this suite haven’t changed, thus, does a change of personnel changes reality?
Commissioners might have changed, but the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Policies have not. Commissioners are to advise on proper land use according to established plans and policies. The outcome should be the same. This nomination should not have been accepted or even entertained in any capacity. Why is this level of density so critical at this location that we would step away from policy?
The Commissioners communicated an air of arrogance toward the represented communities at the meeting. In some cases they appeared to be saying, we listened to you……BUT……..we’re smarter. We have better vision. We don’t care what the Board decided 2 years ago, we’re in charge now. It was obvious this proceeding was not the result of community outreach. I pity the staff, as they are the ones who will have to work long and hard to meet the demands placed on them by good intentioned Commissioners.
This is very bad for current homeowners and residents. Our schools are already overfilled and crime is up, why bring in more people if our property taxes are already not meeting the needs of the ones who are here? What is the purpose of adding apartments or townhomes to an established single family neighborhood? How does this serve the established community? Who in their right mind would agree to this when our homes are worth <$1 million? We paid to live in a quiet single family neighborhood and asked that it remain so. Find another location! The neighborhood has repeatedly rejected this proposal. Why would we pay our insane property taxes to not be respected? This proposal is entirely at the expense of the neighborhood and its residents.
After the unpopular food tax (repeatedly opposed by the community) and now the 6675 Little River proposal, it’s obvious the Board of Supervisors is pushing its own agenda over the interests of residents.
The unusual move to attach a “suggested range” of density says it all: they want higher density here, regardless of what the community wants, or the safety concerns it raises for nearby neighborhoods.
In 2023, the nominator tried to scale back their rejected ~100-unit proposal to ~50 units at the last minute. It was too late, and the commission rejected it. Now, instead of resubmitting the 50-unit version, they’ve come back with something even more extreme: ~180 units. It’s a textbook bracketing move, and it’s disheartening to see it working.
Think about the precedent this sets: get denied, wait two years, come back with an even worse plan, and walk away with more than you originally asked for. The Board seems terrified of underused land, and developers are clearly taking advantage, at the community’s expense.
They’re not just ignoring their constituents — they’re actively encouraging bad-faith behavior by future nominators.
I think the real motivation here is the fact the Supervisor Jimenez and Supervisor McKay are both recipients of large donations from this builder. They are steam rolling this nomination against staff recommendations and the community at large. There has been no conversation about the impact of the local schools along with the residential traffic. The fact that this proposal was turned down two years ago and is now moving through speaks to the influence of the builder.
It appears that several BOS Supervisors want this project to go through, regardless of community concerns/input. The property owner has several pending projects throughout Fairfax County.
If a Supervisor makes a motion to amend what the Planning Commission just passed, by upgrading from Tier 3, further increasing number of units, removing the townhouse option or removing the study criteria, it would mean that the planning process is just window dressing for what Supervisors want.
As it is, the planning process has not been consistent, as the article describes. It really does make one lose trust in government.
It’s a shame that the Board and their affiliates (Wang was appointed by Jimenez) keep talking about community engagement and representation and it all turns out to be lip service. It seems that the memo about McKay back in 2019 was actually on to something and not just a smear campaign!
For the umpteenth time – take a look at who keeps getting elected to the BoS.
Perhaps Willow Bay can apply to become designated as a Historic Overlay District? I think Fairfax County neighborhoods can use that designation to legally deter construction that isn’t sympathetic to the architecture of existing houses and structures. I hear that HODs are an excellent tool to also rebuff McMansions and promote NIMBY objectives.
*Willow Run
This isn’t a NIMBY objective though? This is a bribery call out and a blatant disregard for precedent and established land use policy. The neighbors don’t care if the property gets developed in to residential units the scale and disregard of policy is the issue. Clearly the BoS doesn’t need you out here running your mouth for free, they get fat checks and ignore the citizen. It’s not the time to be rallying for government overreach.
Bribery? Seriously? Where? Show me the proof – I want to see transcripts, pics or video of a briefcase of cash going to county officials. You don’t get to make unfounded accusations and have them stick just because you say they exist; otherwise, you have a duty to call the AGs office and file a complaint.
The original nomination called for 1-floor commercial and something like 186 resi units with a total 2.75 FAR, which is WAY too dense for the location. The nominator didn’t do himself any favors with that overreach. But since the initial nomination, the Planning Commissioners have made it known over a couple public meetings and project iterations that there’s a possible approvable solution to be had ONLY if it reduces down to 75-125 resi units with a .75 to 1.25 FAR -or- just townhouses with a density more like Pinecrest. Plus, a solution would require the nominator to meaningfully engage with the community, provide a robust stormwater mgmt control system, appropriate buffering and screening, address traffic/parking/ped concerns, and the like. That’s a meaningful density decrease of up to 70+% from the original nomination. And the Planning Commission might still shelve the project. Listen to the meeting recordings; the Planning Commissioners aren’t giving the nominator a free pass in any way, shape or form. They’re doing this professionally.
But none of this seems to matter to you, as you and your disingenuous anti-anything tribe hope to protect the status quo by getting something, anything, to stick in order to keep your Pro Computers building, marginal garden center, and two adjoining lots intact and unchanged. That is the definition of peak NIMBY.
Disclosure: I don’t work for the County, now or in the past. I don’t know or engage with any Planning Commissioner or BOS office, and am not beholden to anyone. I don’t know or work for the nominator or anybody s/he employs. I’m just a taxpaying homeowner in Falls Church/Annandale who understands the need for more housing, where it works and might be appropriate. And this location on 236, a primary corridor with mass transit, is a logical site for additional County housing for families and the tax receipts it would provide.
The BOS should be investigated for corruption and taking bribes. Board member change does not equal planning or zoning change especially against the wishes of the community. This proposal has already been vetoed! What exactly is Alis Wang’s affiliation to George Hong? There is no logical reason why the builder should be prioritized over the established community of homeowners and tax payers.
Our schools are overcrowded and there is also an environmental concern not to mention traffic issues. What about the additional noise and the effect on native wildlife? How are the public schools going to absorb even more children when our classrooms are currently overcrowded and underserved? We don’t have the infrastructure in place to accommodate this proposal.
It’s not corrupt when special interest / identity groups demand support or oppose a candidate with their time, money and efforts. It’s not corrupt when individuals or groups donate to candidates that support them or their issues. This includes developers. Even if t seems to be pay to play (you one get access that way). The challenge is that most people don’t vote or vote only for one party – so only a small handful of people are involved in electing officials and it becomes incestuous. Compounding the challenge is the off year elections in VA, which supports the entrenched interests in power.
Vote people out of office and it will change the dynamics. Hope someone credible and competent primaries the Mason Supervisor and wins – that is something that will help.
I think you should prove it if you’re going to make big claims like that. If you’re coming in hot like this without receipts, you’re no better than a bully.
I made no claims, simply an assertion of a much needed investigation. Mind your own business, Dee. You are no better than a bully.
Dee is right. Your “assertion” is completely unfounded. There is no smoking gun or proof that bribery and/or corruption is occurring or has occurred.
If you had put forth a compelling argument as to the project’s detrimental effects relating to environmental, traffic, noise, overcrowding schools, or whatever, people might consider your opinion. But just another serving of innuendo, conspiracy and unfounded accusations to express your reflexive disagreement with the project is easily dismissed.
The responsibility for a compelling argument is not mine but the one who proposed the project. A thorough investigation into the BOS would determine if there is a smoking gun or proof of corruption. An investigation and disclosure report on the matter would ensure transparency and prevent any potential conflicts of interest. Advancing a previously vetoed proposal with significant opposition is unusual and the lack of consistency by the BOS is alarming.
George Hong has several pending proposals in Fairfax county that are being considered. Investigating how much he, his employees, allies, holdings and entities have contributed to state and local political candidates and political action committees to make this proposal seem viable is part of the democratic process. Many residents are concerned and a transparent investigation into finances and affiliations would put this suspicion to rest. All campaign finance and donations in Fairfax County are a regulated part of the democratic process.
I acknowledge that Mr. Hong, his employees, associates, partners, family members and others have a right to make donations to any candidate whose campaign they wish to support. I have made no claims against any individual or the BOS.
I clearly stated an investigation is needed, I have not said that Mr. Hong or the BOS have done anything illegal. I am only suspicious that Mr. Hong is suddenly wielding so much influence in Fairfax county. As I said, it is very unusual and it is why Virginia has a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Advisory Council and mandates financial disclosures. You doth protest too much, methinks.
I am sick and tired of people who oppose a public policy flinging unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct against public officials and people interacting with the governmental process.
It’s understood that the local community opposes this multifamily development as proposed. However, the barely hidden racism embedded within the highly inflammatory claims against non-white Mason District leaders: Supervisor Andres Jimenez, Planning Commissioner Alis Wang; and property owner/developer George Hong, are disgusting and must stop.
The leaders of this so-called “progressive blog” need to consider deep introspection for being willing to platform so much uninformed and unsubstantiated allegations against the minorities who are leading Mason District forward in the 21st Century.
Stop acting as though George Hong is Mason District’s Donald Trump would be a good place to stop the demonization being platformed on this site.
Get over yourself! I am a non-white minority. As representatives of the community the public has every right to criticize the decisions of the HOB and call for an investigation. You have made several accusations against me including bullying and racism all of which are false and unsubstantiated. You are a bully and I disagree with you.
It’s always the bullies who claim they are being bullied. It’s always those who don’t want democracy who claim they are protecting our precious democracy.
Always.