Planning Commission recommends one-to-one replacement of affordable housing
The Fairfax County Planning Commission on Feb. 15 passed a motion to recommend the Board of Supervisors strengthen the county’s policy on preserving affordable housing.
As developed by county staff, a new objective would be added “to provide affordable multifamily rental housing incentives for preservation, including density.”
The goal is “no net loss of affordable housing” – when multifamily properties are redeveloped – through a one-for-one replacement.
The recommendation also calls for an analysis of the affordability of properties being redeveloped. New guidelines for multifamily affordable housing preservation would be developed to include potential incentives for developers, such as additional density and building height.
The guidelines would also cover relocation plans for tenants while a property is being redeveloped.
The policy addresses multifamily rental housing affordable to households earning 60 percent of the area median income or below
This would be achieved by retaining both “market affordable” and “committed affordable” housing, Bree Fuller of the Department of Housing and Community Development, told the Planning Commission.
Market affordable units are naturally occurring, due to the location and condition of the property. Many of these properties are older and face the threat of redevelopment. Committed affordable properties have income restrictions that could expire.
Related story: Proposed policy would preserve more affordable housing
The policy calls for a variety of tools for preserving affordable housing, including financial tools, land use policies, legislative priorities, and other measures.
The affordable housing policy would come into play when an apartment owner applies for a plan amendment or rezoning to redevelop a property.
In that case, the county could provide incentives to the developer, such as allowing greater density or a higher building than would normally be allowed.
Staff identified 8,300 affordable units in 44 privately owned properties across the county.
An analysis of a one-size-fits-all policy to allow to ensure the preservation of affordable units in properties facing redevelopment wouldn’t provide consistent results, Fuller said.
Instead, staff proposed a flexible approach.
Properties with a greater proportion of affordable units need greater density and more financial incentives than other properties, she said. Size and location of properties would also need to be considered.
Developers would still be required to provide ADUs (affordable dwelling units) and WDUs (workforce dwelling units). They would count toward the replacement units.
Draft administrative guidelines are expected to be prepared before the Board of Supervisors’ hearing on the affordable housing policy, which is scheduled for March 21. The guidelines will cover the specific calculation of affordability, particularly for market affordability.
During the Planning Commission hearing, Brian Winterhalter, a commercial real estate attorney, said the one-to-one replacement standard should be a goal rather than a hard-and-fast mandate.
If it’s a mandate, he suggested property owners might forgo redevelopment and instead upgrade a property, which could lead to rent increases.
“We recognize one-for-one might not be achievable in every situation,” Fuller clarified. “We will work with applicants to achieve the goal.”
According to the county’s affordable housing dashboard, more than a third (34 percent) of the county’s market affordable rental units are in the Mount Vernon District. Nineteen percent are in Mason, 17 percent are in Franconia, and 13 percent are in Providence.
Of the county’s 15,483 committed affordable units, 21 percent are in Mason District, 17 percent are in Hunter Mill, 16 percent are in Providence, and 15 percent are in Franconia.
We absolutely do not need to incentivize by waiving restrictions on height or density. That is what results in destruction of neighborhood feel and introduction of all the coldness and crime that comes with city living. Go back to the drawing board on this and stop bending over for developers
No one wants to live in cities anymore. So they bring the cities to you.
How do you suggest we increase housing supply without increasing density? The county desperately needs to build housing because right now nothing is market affordable.
Otherwise stated: Investment dollars will steer clear of the Mason District and its concentrated affordable housing as it slides further into decline.
Does the county ever listen to residents who bought homes here in what was once a residential area ??? Do they live here?? Planners please look at areas across the US that tried to create affordable areas — those become overly dense slums – pockets of poverty that don’t benefit the residents or the community. Why are you repeating this failed experiment??? Means tested Housing vouchers are the only proven method to address workforce housing – developers pay into a managed fund / vouchers are issued from the fund to people who need it.
Does the county ever listen to residents who bought homes here in what was once a residential area ??? Do they live here?? Planners please look at areas across the US that tried to create affordable areas — those become overly dense slums – pockets of poverty that don’t benefit the residents or the community. Why are you repeating this failed experiment??? Means tested Housing vouchers are the only proven method to address workforce housing – developers pay into a managed fund / vouchers are issued from the fund to people who need it.
My understanding from reading this article is the Fairfax County Planning Commission is recommending a policy of keeping “affordable housing” where it currently exists, and keeping “affordable housing” away from where it doesn’t exist, such as the affluent areas of McLean, Reston, Great Falls, Vienna, etc.
And, as noted by other commenters, the property owners who redevelop property to maintain or increase “affordable housing” were it currently exists are rewarded with greater density to ensure they receive an excellent profit margin on the redevelopment.
This policy makes sense in the context of a world where those who already have receive more. And those who don’t can live in newer “affordable housing” with increased density. And the developers make profits, and the Fairfax County Government increases its tax revenues.
Win-Win-Win-Win.
So here you have it. The planning commission of lefty losers are intent on destroying Mason District by making it the Section 8 mecca of Fairfax County.
Don’t worry, in time, the equity virus will spread to affluent neighborhoods too. The left will not rest until everyone is equally miserable.
you always have something stupid to comment 😪
Not stupid, facts only. Do your research before you blow off others’ opinions.
all you say is bs like “and what did the board do nothing! 🥺🤓”
Cee, get the facts before blowing off others’ posts.
Exactly correct – concentrations of low income housing have NEVER improved a community .vouchers and loan programs work. Creating concentrations of poverty has failed in every society forever. Does Fairfax staff and board read? Or did they all attend Ffx county schools?
I like the voucher idea, and we need to hold developers’ feet to the fire to designate certain units in new buildings for low income or workforce housing. Now they get away with paying a fine to keep all the units market rate. I agree that building vast blocs of low income housing results in slums and crime.