Planning Commission retains public hearing requirement for accessory living units
The Fairfax County Planning Commission approved zMOD, the huge zoning ordinance modernization project March 3, with some key amendments.
The measure goes to the Board of Supervisors for a public hearing March 9 and a final decision.
The two sections in zMOD that have raised the most concerns with the public are proposals to make it easier for owners of residential properties to have accessory living units (ALUs) and home-based businesses.
The Planning Commission voted to continue the requirement that all ALUs – including those inside single-family homes – must have a special permit. That requires a public hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The draft zMOD document by the planning staff would have allowed interior ALUs to be approved under an administrative application process. The current rules require special permits for detached ALUs, and that would remain unchanged.
Related story: Residents speak out against zoning changes that would destabilize neighborhoods
The Planning Commission approved an amendment to allow homeowners to establish an ALU in an entire full basement. But homeowners wouldn’t be allowed to expand a basement to create an ALU.
Another amendment retains the requirement that at least one resident of the home or the ALU must be at least 55 years old or have a disability. The zMOD draft included an option to eliminate that requirement.
The Planning Commission agreed that property owners who want to establish a home-based business would need a BZA hearing unless they have zero customers. Another exception would allow administrative approval for home-based businesses that provide instructional services and have up to four students at a time or eight in a day.
A standard for home-based businesses would be added to limit flammable, explosive, or hazardous materials.
Planning staff would be directed to monitor and evaluate ALUs and home-based businesses after the new zoning ordinance takes effect. Another amendment would establish a community task force to study whether further changes are needed in those uses to discourage negative impacts.
The Planning Commission also approved amendments to make it easier to file an application online and to educate the public on how to identify code violations and how to file a complaint.
Several of the votes taken by the commissioners were evenly or nearly evenly split, as they tried to balance the need for more affordable housing with the intense community opposition to easing the zoning rules.
Planning commissioners received hundreds of letters from residents opposing zoning changes that would attract more people and traffic to already-dense neighborhoods.
There was extensive discussion on whether the zoning rules for ALUs and home-based businesses should make a distinction for certain types of neighborhoods. A motion to require special permits for ALUs and home-based businesses in “P districts” (planned developments) failed to pass on a tie vote. But then the commission voted to require special permits for all ALUs.
Related story: Residents offer diverse views on flag restrictions
The Planning Commission rejected the proposed changes on flags and flagpoles and voted to retain the current rules, which permit up to three flags per lot.
One commissioner referred to the proposed zoning rule, which called for only two flags on a residential property and restrictions on the size of flagpoles and flags, “a solution looking for a problem.”
The Planning Commission also approved a measure to establish a stakeholder group of landscaping companies to consider solutions to the lack of commercial locations and places to park commercial vehicles.
From article above: "Several of the votes taken by the commissioners were evenly or nearly evenly split, as they tried to balance the need for more affordable housing with the intense community opposition to easing the zoning rules."
Accessory Living Units (apartments) have nothing to do with affordable housing. Some Planning Commissioners and Supervisors are either confused or are purposely mixing the two uses together to let citizens think if ALUs are allowed across the county, more affordable housing will automatically be created. Who isn't fors more affordable housing but ALUs are not affordable housing. Homeowners who build an apartment will rent their apartments at market rate! The county can't force owners to charge below market rate for their apartments.
At least the Planning Commission voted last night to keep the public hearing requirement in zMOD so that neighbors will be notified when a neighbor applies to build an apartment in his/her house. Neighbors need to know and have input – it's their neighborhood too.
The county believes that allowing ALUs will increase housing supply, thus causing the market rate to go down. That is why they are considering it as a solution to affordable housing.
I do agree that ALUs are a very superficial solution to a much greater problem. It continues a trend of disjointed planning.
But it will accomplish their goal of increasing the taxes on existing housing. There is no commercial tax base left so they are looking to residential to increase the tax base. We've had more than 2 million square feet of empty office space for 10-15 years. Why don't we use those for additional housing, either repurposing or demolishing and redeveloping? It's the government for God's sake, can't they do something about that little problem?
And this is the assumption that the Neighbor will apply to put an apartment in their home. They don't or I wouldn't have multiple families living in the house next door.
Perhaps this is one of those times to just go with the flow. Under the proposed zoning modifications, I can rent the four bedrooms in my house to eight unrelated people and rent the garage to a hair stylist. The I could build an ALU in the back yard and rent that to four more people.
With all that income, I'll be able to retire to someplace where the local government favors keeping residential neighborhoods residential and most of my neighbors use their homes as personal residences. What a concept!
The transcript of the meeting is now available on the Planning Commission’s website (under “verbatim”). It’s an interesting read for those among us who do not have a life.
I have to say, I'm pleasantly surprised the Planning Commission voted to modify the problematic aspects of the draft ALU and home-based businesses regulations. Perhaps there is still hope for the County and its responsiveness to the concerns of residents since the BoS appears hopeless. Per past comments of supervisors, the BoS was/is all-in on zMOD. Had the PC approved the zMOD as drafted the BoS would have had political cover to do so. The PC's vote puts the BoS in a tough position – do they override the PC’s judgment, the experts on land use? I would hope not. We shall see, and kudos to the many, many people who pointed out the obvious flaws in the ALU and home-based business draft. The zoning regulations are need of an update. Just not an update that will increase the density and commercialization of non-HOA SFH communities while simultaneously removing the ability of residents to participate in a process that affects them directly.
I agree it is hopeful but the PC isn't the decision maker here. I doubt this BOS will do anything but push this zMOD package through. This all comes from Gartner. If you don't know what that is check out the http://www.act4fairfax.net website … it is all there.