Fairfax County planners have backed zoning changes to allow greater leeway for accessory living units (ALUs).
At its meeting last Wednesday (Nov. 3), the Fairfax County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposal to revise the regulations as part of a county effort to boost its housing stock.
“An accessory living unit can let a family bring an aging parent close, give an adult child a place to start out, help an older homeowner age in place with a caregiver nearby or add a modestly priced home in a part of the county where few exist,” said At-Large Commissioner Candice Bennett.
Fairfax County last revised its accessory living unit regulations in 2021 as part of an overhaul of the zoning code, but it hasn’t seen as much of an expansion in units as anticipated. Prior to that update, ALU occupants were limited to people who were 55 and older or had a disability, and property owners were required to obtain a special-use permit.
The updated zoning ordinance removed the restrictions on the type of people who could reside in ALUs, capped occupancy at two, required the property owner to live in the primary residence on the site and put in a minimum property size of 2 acres.
Hoping to increase the usage of ALUs with a new amendment, county staff recommended:
- Increasing the number of allowed occupants to three
- Allowing the units by right on lots that are at least 36,000 square feet, which is less than an acre
- Eliminating the requirement for additional off-street parking
- Increasing the maximum height from 20 feet to 35 feet
- Capping the size of the units to 1,200 square feet or 40% of the principal dwelling
However, at last week’s planning commission meeting, Bennett made a motion to revise those recommendations, proposing to reduce the minimum lot size even further to 15,000 square feet and limit occupancy to four people.
Three other commissioners tried to amend the regulations even more, but each motion was voted down: Providence District Commissioner Jeremy Hancock sought to allow the units with townhouses, Sully District Commissioner Evelyn Spain tried to remove the owner occupancy requirement and Chair Phillip Niedzielski-Eichner tried to keep the existing requirement of one additional parking space per ALU.
After the subsequent motions failed, the commission unanimously backed Bennett’s motion.
At a public hearing on Oct. 29, the proposed new regulations drew criticism from several neighborhood associations for potentially altering the character of established properties.
Some of the planning commission’s recommendations drew flak from Springfield District Supervisor Pat Herrity, the county board’s lone Republican. In a newsletter sent out Friday (Nov. 6), he argued the off-site parking requirement should remain, occupancy should only be increased to three people and lots smaller than 35,000 square feet “probably should” require a special permit.
“I believe we need an ordinance that allows additional housing that is similar to and compatible with the principal dwelling and the neighborhood it joins, and that does not detract from neighboring properties or the established character of the street,” Herrity wrote.
On the other side, the Coalition for Smarter Growth (CSG), a regional organization that advocates for more walkable, transit-oriented communities, supported the updated regulations.
“It will take every tool in the policy toolbox to meet our housing needs. This update is an opportunity for ALUs to be a real part of the solution,” Becca Dedert, CSG’s Virginia Housing Advocacy Specialist, said in a press release issued on Nov. 2, prior to the planning commission’s vote.
“ALUs are an incredibly beneficial housing option. They offer flexibility for different stages of life, encouraging intergenerational living and helping meet specialized housing needs. Because of their smaller footprint, they are one of the most low-cost forms of housing. Letting homeowners safely and easily build ALUs on their property is one of the most organic and cost-effective ways we can address our housing needs.”
The proposal is scheduled to be considered by the Board of Supervisors at its next meeting on Nov. 17.
