Virginia delegate wants to allow denser housing on single-family lots
 |
| Stanley Martin, a homebuilder active in Northern Virginia, offers multi-generational homes, like this one, with a private living space inside – with its own entrance, kitchenette, family room, bedroom, and one-car garage. The concept is being marketed to families who want a separate apartment in their home for an elderly parent. [Stanley Martin] |
The lack of affordable housing is a huge problem in Northern Virginia, where even middle-class residents are being forced to live further out into the exurbs.
Virginia Del. Ibraheem Samirah (D-86th District) has a controversial solution: He introduced legislation to override local zoning ordinances by requiring all localities in Virginia to allow more dense development on lots zoned for single-family houses.
House Bill 152 would allow “middle housing,” defined as two-family residential units – such as duplexes, townhouses, and cottages – on property zoned for single-family homes. These structures would not require a special-use permit, but localities would be able to regulate the siting, design, setback standards, and environmental standards for them.
“Across the country, there is a shortage of affordable units that is putting a squeeze on working families and contributing to rises in rents for existing units,” says Samirah, whose district encompasses parts of Herndon and Chantilly in Fairfax County and Sterling Park in Loudoun County.
For Samirah, the need to loosen up the zoning regulations through what’s known as “upzoning,” would address decades of discrimination.
“Because middle housing is what’s most affordable for low-income people and people of color, banning that housing in well-off neighborhoods chalks up to modern-day redlining, locking folks out of areas with better access to schools, jobs, transit, and other services and amenities,” he says.
“Upzoning would make it easier to cluster around environmentally friendly transit options and reduce commutes by allowing you to find housing closer to a job,” Samirah states.
While many older homeowners are likely to oppose this proposal, citing a potential decline in property values and increased traffic and parking problems, there’s a growing population of millennial YIMBYs (yes. in my backyard) who are advocating for affordable housing, urbanism, and sustainability.
Similar measures banning single-family zoning in cities with more than 25,000 people were passed in Oregon in 2019 and in Minneapolis in 2018, City Lab reports. Seattle and Austin approved more limited upzoning policies.
In response to the opposition he’s heard since the bill was introduced in December, Samirah states: “The purpose is to allow the market more opportunities to build housing units, which would help alleviate the housing shortage and help bring down costs. This would NOT get rid of single-family housing. In fact, my bill explicitly states that single-family housing types are still allowed on the lots that are zoned for them.”
While encouraging middle housing would increase the supply of affordable housing, it’s not the only solution. Samirah is also calling for a greater investment in low-income housing and an exploration of other options, such as “rent control and anti-gouging that tackles the greed in rental markets.”
14 responses to “Virginia delegate wants to allow denser housing on single-family lots”
Leave a reply
It's an interesting legislative structure where a developer, turned delegate, can introduce fairly disruptive legislation in the name of affordable housing that would directly impact his bottom line. Guess it's the Trump effect.
Del. Samirah is a dentist, not a developer.
As density rises, so does crime
The reality of this legislation around here would be that “protected” single family home communities (either populated by wealthy and politically active residents, or an HOA rules the land) would stay as they are, and the middle-class single family communities that already provide a good portion of middle-class housing around here would slide into a overcrowded nightmare of abject granny flats, basement apartments, and accessory dwelling structures.
Oh gosh. The suburban Low density NIMBYs are still stuck in 1993.
You know damn well that these type of housing units will be used as rentals for additional income. And because of the limited powers of zoning, the greedy will get away with this while eroding the core of our neighborhoods with unsightly over parking and poor property maintenance, that BTW already exists. Great idea, but not for Mason. The County should look at other tax revenue options and lowering costs for social services to provide better revenue. This is not a NIMBY statement, this is a practical and realistic point of view based on observations of the decline to Mason's neighborhoods.
Question: If i have a home for sale in a community without HOA – can I sell to a developer and they tear it down and put a duplex up on the lot? Is that allowed under this legislation? At least in Mason we have so many multiple family/rental/flop houses that are in SFH that this might make it worse with parking, etc.
It sounds like this is exactly how it would work. And even if said developer runs into setback issues, the board of zoning appeals is an absolute joke and pretty much any variance that is applied for is approved forthwith.
I love the enticing photos. Have you seen some of the bombs that have been built under the category of mother daughter. None of those built look like this beautiful photo, we can only hope for this. The ones that I have seen in Mason are a cross between over stuffed colonial and bodega with a touch of cars all over the place. One near Queen of Apostle has an actual parking lot that is spilling over onto the street.
Are you talking about the one on Crestwood?
YES the one on Crestwood.
BTW, I think one is under construction on Summit near Landess in Parklawn. It has a three car garage that is bookended by what looks like two separate residences. Looks nothing like this beautiful photograph.
This is a bad idea, and I hope it is soundly defeated.
Affordable housing is absolutely a real issue that needs to be tackled, but usurping local zoning authority is not the way to go about it. Such a move would enable increased density in an unplanned, unpredictable, and haphazard fashion. The powers that be already have a hard enough time doing capacity planning when it comes to roads, schools, stormwater, and utilities. This would be a planning NIGHTMARE.
Rather, we need to enable the higher density planned development that we already have on the books. Such planned multi-use development in area CBCs, theoretically at least coordinated with transit/road improvements, etc, are a much better way to handle the lack of housing.
To that end, one of the biggest things that has been holding up development in our area is the lack of high capacity mass transit. Things like BRT on Rt 7 are still 10 years out, partly due NVTC's funding plans. If this delegate really was serious about addressing affordable housing, he'd be serious about also addressing transportation funding.
What type of abode does Ibraheem Samirah (D-86th District) live in????