The general height limit for single-family homes across Fairfax County has stood at 35 feet for 67 years. But county officials say that restriction needs clarification so local residents and builders better understand how the calculation is made.
“Simplicity is important for a lot of reasons,” Board of Supervisors Chair Jeff McKay said yesterday (Tuesday) at a meeting of the board’s Land Use Policy Committee.
“Let’s make sure we land in a place that’s easy to understand [and] easy to enforce,” McKay said of proposed zoning amendments laid out by county staff for future consideration.
The 35-foot height limit that has been in place for single-family construction since 1959 can be interpreted a number of ways, though it’s currently defined in the zoning ordinance as the vertical distance from the “average grade” (the slope of the land where the house sits) to the roof.
By the early 2000s, developers began stretching those interpretations, with some new properties soaring up to 45 feet above grade.
“The homes were just getting bigger,” said Drew Hushour, the county’s assistant zoning administrator. “We’re seeing a lot of dwelling units in the last 15-20 years that are pretty intricately designed. Creative home design really pushed the limits.”
For homes with flat roofs, calculations are relatively simple, but for homes with gabled roofs, height is measured at the roof’s midpoint, not the highest ridge.
Confusing? Yes, it can be, said Sully District Supervisor Kathy Smith, who chairs the land-use committee.
“It is very technical,” Smith said.
At the March 10 meeting, staff laid out three possible scenarios to refine the rules:
- Keeping the existing regulations but cleaning up zoning language to make them clearer
- Introducing a maximum peak height of between 37.5 feet and 40 feet, with staff preferring 38 feet
- Using the highest eave of the roof instead of the highest ridge to calculate height
“Each of these methods is going to give you a different result,” Hushour said.
Among supervisors who expressed a preference, retaining the status quo was not desired.
“Option 1 is probably not the way to go,” said Dranesville District Supervisor Jimmy Bierman.
He called the other options up for discussion “very much a step in the right direction.”
Bierman said he often gets complaints from constituents about the mass of new residential construction in areas like McLean and Great Falls.
“This is kind of a constant that we’re seeing in the Dranesville District,” he said.
Franconia District Supervisor Rodney Lusk also was a “no” to retaining the existing rules.
Providence District Supervisor Dalia Palchik said it would be good to have what she described as guardrails — “clear descriptions that are really easy to understand” by the public and the industry.
“If it’s not simple, that’ll create more problems,” Mount Vernon District Supervisor Dan Storck agreed.
Springfield District Supervisor Pat Herrity, who requested in November that the county revisit its residential building height rules after receiving complaints about a three-story home addition in Greenbriar, echoed that sentiment: “We need to keep it simple and not complicated.”
A one-size-fits-all policy may not be easy to implement. Several supervisors said there should be consideration of distinctions between new and infill development, while McKay noted additional nuances.
“No two lots in the county are the same,” he said.
Before coming back to the board with recommendations by the end of the year, staff will host outreach sessions in the community and with industry organizations. McKay said he wanted to see more engagement, rather than less of it.
“I absolutely think we need to get out and get feedback,” he said, calling the timetable “aggressive” but achievable.
As to a lingering historical question — why the limit was set at 35 feet in 1959 — Hushour said staff conducted research in an attempt to determine the reasoning, but no definitive answer appears to have been found.
Staff said they want to tackle the height issue first, before moving on to consider other zoning changes that could impact residential development.
Addressing height is “a logical first step, a building block” to future changes, Hushour said.
Supervisors seemed to agree.
“We know there’s a bigger issue to look at,” Smith said.
“This is just a little piece of a bigger discussion,” Hunter Mill District Supervisor Walter Alcorn added.
