Planning Commission recommends more flexibility for ALUs

The Fairfax County Planning Commission on Nov. 4 recommended approval of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to spur the establishment of more accessory living units (ALUs) – with some significant changes.

The county’s planning staff proposed streamlining the ALU requirements as one way to increase the supply of housing. The county estimates it has a gap of 400,000 units.

At a hearing last week, several community association representatives urged the Planning Commission to retain the existing rules, arguing that more flexibility would harm stable neighborhoods.

Owner occupancy

One of the changes that drew the most complaints at the hearing was a proposal to eliminate the requirement that the owners of a property with an ALU live in the principal dwelling or the ALU. They worried that would result in off-site landlords who won’t be concerned with property maintenance or problem tenants.

The Planning Commission approved a motion by Candace Bennett (at large) to retain the existing provision on owner-occupancy, allow up to four people in an ALU, and reduce the minimum lot size for detached ALUs.

The existing rules limit ALU residents to two people; the zoning staff proposed a maximum of three residents.

Smaller lots

The zoning staff recommended by-right detached ALUs be allowed on lots of at least 36,000 square feet, up from the existing limit of two acres.

The motion approved by the Planning Commission would allow ALUs on lots of at least 15,000 square feet by right. ALUs on smaller lots could be approved with a special permit.

Related story: Neighborhood reps oppose rule changes for ALUs

Several amendments to the main motion were rejected, including a proposal to allow ALUs in townhouses if a special permit is approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Jeremy Hancock (Providence) said that would make sense because townhomes can already have several tenants, but an owner can’t put in a kitchen to create an interior ALU.

Both Planning Commission Chair Phillip Niedzielski-Eichner and Alis Wang (Mason) opposed adding townhomes but suggested revisiting that idea in the future.

Parking

Niedzielski-Eichner proposed an amendment to retain the existing requirement for an additional parking space. That is needed, he said, especially in denser neighborhoods and if the number of ALU residents is expanded. That motion failed to pass.

Another motion that was rejected called for retaining the administrative permit requirement for all ALUs with a renewal process every five years. Alyssa Batchelor-Causey (Dranesville) said that would allow people to track ALUs in their neighborhood, which was a key concern at last week’s hearing.

Niedzielski-Eichner said he opposed reintroducing administrative permits because that would be contrary to the goals of the ALU zoning amendment to streamline the approval process, allow more flexibility, and ultimately, address the need for more affordable housing.

After the main motion was passed, the Planning Commission approved two follow-on motions. One recommends a report on ALU data due in 2028. The other calls for the development of educational materials for homeowners on the requirements and responsibilities for establishing an ALU.