WHAT'S GOING ON:

March 21, 2024

"No Casino in Fairfax County" Update:

For those interested and involved in the "No Casino in Fairfax County" effort we have received the following update on additional ways to actively participate:

As part of the effort to stop reintroduction of a casino bill in the 2025 legislative session, neighbors are also showing up and speaking out at the Board of Supervisor's Public Comment period during one of their monthly Public Hearings.  

You can attend and show support for speakers at one or more upcoming Public Comment periods, and for those who are comfortable doing so, sign up to speak at one of those sessions. T-shirts and bumper stickers will be provided to highlight the level of opposition in the auditorium to a Casino in the County.   

Anyone can sign up to speak. It would be good to hear voices from Mason District and throughout the County and to see people showing up and supporting those who are speaking.   There still are open speaking slots if anyone is interested.

Below is further info on upcoming Public Comment periods and how to sign up to speak. Public Comment time is normally at the end of all the other matters slated for Public Hearing and generally is at or after 4:30 PM.

Upcoming Public Comment periods:

1. May 21

2. June 25

3. July 30

4. September 24

To sign up to speak: 

• Go to https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/bosclerk/speakers-form or call the clerk's office at 703-324-3151

• When prompted, indicate that your topic is "Casino"

Sally Horn

No Casino Coalition

March 20, 2024

Stay informed and aware - SCAM JAM 2024  events.aarp.org/event/FFXSJ24/summary?fbclid=IwAR0Jg1AROCnNhUDW1hojSMLZn1NOgWl1iUeo6CXRH6Zj7GBVjC3Jvv4LTjM&sms=1 

Con artists don’t care how hard you’ve worked for your money. They steal billions of dollars from hard-working Americans every year. With advances in artificial intelligence (AI), scams can be hard to identify. Criminals make it hard to spot fraud by using AI to mimic voices, alter photos, and avoid spelling and grammar mistakes.

That’s why AARP Virginia and the Fairfax County Silver Shield Task Force invite you to the 7th Annual Scam Jam.

April 19, 2024

9:00 AM-3:00 PM

at the Fairfax County Government Center

12000 Government Center Parkway

Fairfax, VA 22035

March 4, 2024

The prospect of a casino in Fairfax County has generated great concern over the last few months.  Several citizens association have joined together to oppose a casino in the County.  The information below summarizes some of the concerns, and how neighbors and other citizens associations may engage with local Board members in the effort to oppose a casino in the County:

NO CASINOS IN FAIRFAX COUNTY!
Virginia Senator Dave Marsden has proposed Senate Bill (SB) 675 in the 2024 General Assembly to allow for the Board of Supervisors to hold a referendum on allowing casinos in Fairfax County, probably in Tysons.

Due to response from residents, the bill was carried forward until the 2025 General Assembly session. If you are opposed to a casino in Fairfax County and would like to make your concerns known to our leaders, please go to the following website to find out more about the proposed casino and to send emails to your Fairfax  County leadership.

https://norestoncasino.org/take-action-fairfax-co

Some of the reasons that residents are against a casino in Fairfax County include the following:

Casinos in Fairfax County will NOT bring large amounts of revenue to Fairfax County. Most of the revenue will be going to Richmond, with only 30% going to Fairfax County.

Casinos will require costly infrastructure improvements to support the traffic, parking, and storm water management.

Casinos will require costly increases in police requirements.

Fairfax County prides itself on being a family-friendly community, known for careers in education, technology, and healthcare. Casinos will undermine the very essence of our county’s reputation.

Job opportunities created by casinos are lower-paying with limited opportunities for advancement.

Communities located within 10 miles of a casino exhibit double the rate of problem gambling. Such communities also suffer higher rates of home foreclosure and other forms of economic distress, along with higher rates of domestic violence.

75% of casino customers who play only occasionally, provide only 4% of casino revenues. Problem gamblers keep casinos in business.

Small businesses suffer when casinos are located nearby. Only liquor stores, pawn shops and cash-for-gold outlets prosper.

Allowing casino gambling shifts the cost of government to residents, and usually lower income residents with addiction problems.

Also, if you would like a “No Casino” bumper sticker or yard sign, please contact  LVCA.bod.president@gmail.com

THANK YOU

Feb 26, 2024

We had a good meeting last Thursday Feb 22nd 2024, with lots of information and opportunities for involvement by neighbors. 

Thanks to all who participated in the meeting and who will take the time to provide input and feedback on items included below.

A summary of the meeting follows:

Members of MDC met via Zoom on 22 February from 7:30 - 9:15 PM with four agenda items.  Seventeen members participated.

Treasurer’s Report:  Carol Ofiesh reported that we have $2450.85 in our bank account plus two recently received dues payments of $20 each for a total of $2490.85.  We’ve had no expenditure since our last meeting.

Fairfax Invasive Removal Alliance (FIRA), represented by Wendy Cohen and Inez Nedelcovic, spoke on the need to roll back the mass of invasive plants that is killing trees in our parks and neighborhoods and depriving beneficial bird and insect communities of essential habitats.  FIRA, a new corps of volunteers, is inviting civic, condo, and homeowner associations to join the alliance in an effort to influence the county Board of Supervisors and the General Assembly to devote increased resources to invasive removal.  At the moment, FIRA has no information available online.  See letter and attachments below.

Revision to Policy Plan Guidance re. For-Sale Workforce Dwelling Units.  Lia Neubauer, Fairfax County Department of Planning and Development, provided a comprehensive summary of planned changes to policy whereby for-sale units are made available to families earning 80-120% of the Area Median Income.  The changes were developed by a task force based on the housing market and experience with the current policy.  Background material is available at Workforce Dwelling Unit For-Sale Task Force | Housing and Community Development.

Workforce Dwelling Unit For-Sale Task Force | Housing and Community Deve...

Fairfax County, Virginia - WDU Task Force is working to proposed methodologies to ensure the WDU probram deliver...

Bren Mar Data Center.  Tyler Ray, Bren Pointe HOA, asked MDC members to petition the Board of Supervisors to require a Special Exception as a condition for allowing the data center planned by Starwood Capital Group on an industrial site along Edsall Road in the Bren Mar community.  Under the current, deficient zoning ordinance, the data center is allowed by right despite the fact that it’s clearly incompatible with current and planned developments on adjacent properties.  Starwood submitted a site plan on February 7.  Please go to Save Bren Mar for background information and ask supervisors to require a Special Exception.  An SE is the only means for effectively adapting the development of the data center to the rights and interests of the surrounding residential communities.

Here is a letter and attachments from the newly formed Fairfax Invasive Removal Alliance (FIRA) for your associations to consider:

Dear Neighborhood Association Leader:                                                       

Homeowner, citizen, and condo associations are uniting to form the Fairfax Invasive Removal Alliance (FIRA). Join this coalition to take an active role in ridding our county of invasive plants and supporting the planting of native species. 

Invasives threaten our native trees and other native plants, harm much-needed pollinators, and create environmental degradation. As homeowner, civic, and condo associations, you are important active stewards of our local environments. Together we can bring this critical problem to the attention of our county supervisors and state legislators so that they will take action.

Please read the attached documents. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors document will be shared as public comment at a Board of Supervisors meeting. The General Assembly document will be mailed to legislators. 

Then, click on the link below to let us know your association’s interest in joining together to save our county’s trees and beautiful natural environment from the devastation of invasive non-native plants.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1eU51DTNtuo3rH6jIAf08vNeDM0Zub3KkjQukWH9Nm8c/edit

If you have any questions, please contact firaadvocacy@gmail.com. 

For some inspiration, please read about how Loudoun Invasive Removal Alliance has been effective in getting their supervisors to support invasive removal: https://www.loudounnow.com/news/loudoun-hoas-join-forces-to-fight-invasive-species/article_d3f8c8e8-6ddd-11ee-ae09-f39a59aa47fc.html

Sincerely, 

Ines Nedelcovic, Rekha Dolas, Wendy Cohen

FIRA Organizers

Sample letter to Fx BOS

Dear Members of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, The Fairfax Invasive Removal Alliance (FIRA) was recently created by ___ homeowners’ associations (HOAs), ____citizen associations, and ____condo associations, encompassing over ___ residents, who have come together to ask you to address the critical problem of invasive non-native plant species in Fairfax County. Community associations manage thousands of acres of land that include woods, ponds, and Resource Protection Areas. The problem is too big to be solved by individual communities operating alone, so we are looking to the County for assistance. 

Invasive plants are devastating the natural areas of Fairfax County. Our native trees, which are the powerhouses of the ecosystem, are the most visible victims. At least a million are at risk just in our county from invasive vines that smother and strangle, such as English ivy and Asian wisteria. Still other native trees are being displaced by invasive trees such as the notorious Callery Pear that rapidly moves in after land disturbances. Meanwhile, invasive shrubs such as Multiflora Rose and Burning Bush are choking the lower levels, and the ground layer is being destroyed by invasive groundcovers and other low-growing species. 

As a result of this epidemic, combined with over browsing by deer, most of our woods are not regenerating and are likely to fail altogether by the end of the century unless action is taken. Our grandchildren may be living in a scarred and ugly landscape that is unable to support birds and other wildlife, and that is an invitation to dumping and crime. Trees on individual residential yards are headed for premature death as well. If action is not taken, owners will have to pay for costly tree removals and increase their air conditioning use. Infestations of invasive plants can also be breeding grounds for mosquitoes and ticks. 

The economic repercussions alone of such a scenario are enormous and by themselves justify investing now in preventative measures. Paying for those measures can be difficult for communities with tight budgets and may seem hopeless when uncontrolled invasives on surrounding land can reinfest cleared areas. It is therefore essential that our County come up with a plan to engage all types of landowners, whether public (government, parks, and rights of way) or private (residential, community common land, and commercial.) 

We are writing to urge you to take steps to identify and implement creative solutions to the problem. These could include  creating a vigorous public education campaign  collaborating with other public entities such as VDOT, railroads, etc.  developing the needed workforce  leveraging volunteer labor to maximize effectiveness  advocating for needed legislative changes at the state level  offering incentive programs for the owners of private properties, such as matching grants for communities to treat their common open space  encouraging nurseries to move away from the sale of invasive plants and boost native alternatives instead  finding funding sources for County-owned spaces beyond taxpayers’ money 

Community associations are in a position to help the County with a campaign to reverse the plague of invasive plants. They are able to spread the word and help residents figure out what to do on their own properties. Community associations and the County can be partners in saving our trees and preserving the natural beauty of Fairfax County. 

Thank you for taking the time to consider our request to take action immediately. We are eager to partner with you, since every month of delay only compounds the problem and adds to the expense.

Sample letter to Virginia Legislators:

The Loudoun Invasive Removal Alliance and the Fairfax Invasive Removal Alliance were recently created by ___ homeowners’ associations (HOAs), ___condo associations, and ___civic associations, encompassing over ___ residents. We have come together to ask you to pass legislation to address the critical problem of invasive non-native plant species that are killing trees and destroying habitats in Virginia. 

Community associations manage significant amounts of land that include woodlands, meadows and wetlands. All of these areas are being seriously impacted by invasive non-native species, as are the properties of the individual homeowners. Our open spaces and neighborhood parks are rapidly degrading. Our native trees, which are the powerhouses of the ecosystem, are the most visible victims. Smothered trees are starting to fall. New trees are unable to struggle through the invasives to replace them. Homeowners, community associations, and local governments are facing mounting costs that they can ill afford. The problem has reached crisis proportions in our counties and warrants state intervention. 

Bills are being presented to you this session that can help stem this tide. We urge you to give each your careful consideration and support. While the environmental impact is enormous, the economic impact of uncontrolled invasive plants alone justifies investing now in preventative measures. As a community, we must employ every tool at our disposal, whether financial or other. Every month of delay only adds to the environmental degradation and expense. 

We want Virginia to remain attractive to residents, tourists, and businesses. If we wish our children and grandchildren to inherit a thriving commonwealth, legislation must be passed sooner rather than later to support the comprehensive management of invasive plants in Virginia. 

Sincerely,

NEXT MDC MTG:  February 22nd 2024 by ZOOM

JAN 30, 2024

MDC BOARD COMMENTS TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY re: Casinos in Fairfax County

Opposition to Virginia Senate Bill 675 re Fairfax County Referendum for Casino at Tysons Board of Mason District Council of Community Associations 

30 January 2024 

Distribution: Mason District of Fairfax County State Senators and Delegates Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Fairfax County Planning Commission 

The purpose of this e-mail is to convey strong opposition from the Board of Mason District Council to Senate Bill 675 regarding the possibility of a referendum for a casino in Fairfax County. Mason District Council is an association of neighborhood civic associations and HOA's in Mason District of Fairfax County. 

A principal activity of the Board of MDC is to monitor development activities in the county and offer advice and recommendations to our elected officials regarding how these developments can best serve the safety, security, and interests of Mason District residents. 

Tysons today is the product of decades-long planning and sustained investments by some of the nation’s premier companies as well as thousands of individuals who have elected to live and work in the “new city.” The objective of the development has been to create an environment that will attract the knowledgeable, skilled, and experienced workforce the county and the state require to power our economic growth. 

The stated objective of SB 675 is to stimulate the economic growth of Tysons by establishing a casino on a premium site. This paper’s objection to that proposition is based on the well-known fact that casinos are not a reliable means for fostering economic growth over the long term. The record is mixed at best. But casinos do reliably increase the crime rate, prostitution, drug use, panhandling, proliferation of venues dedicated to adult entertainment, and pathological gambling behavior in the surrounding neighborhoods. Where an urban center is striving to attract a talented, stable, productive, family- and community-oriented workforce, bringing in a casino easily can be counterproductive. 

A report by Adam Scavette, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, analyzing the impacts of the Atlantic City casinos, includes an informative literature survey re the uncertain economic benefits of casinos. A paper by Prof. Siew Lim, North Dakota State University, that addresses the tradeoff between potential economic benefits and community degeneration as a consequence of casinos concludes: Policymakers and community leaders/developers must bear in mind that the social costs of gambling remain an important issue in the casino debate. If the economic benefits are short term and small, but the harm to society is long term and potentially irreversible, rather than focusing on the temporary gains, one must weigh the benefits and costs in a comprehensive, holistic manner. 

Any casino at Tysons would face competition from the $1.4 billion MGM National Harbor Hotel and Casino, the Live Casino and Hotel nearby BWI, and the Horseshoe Baltimore Casino, not to mention the Hollywood Casino at Charles Town Races, casinos nearby in Delaware, and the four or five scheduled to open in the tidewater area this year. open in the tidewater area this year. 

The SB 675 proposal is careless and imprudent in its apparent disregard for the potential harmful consequences of a casino on a premium site at Tysons. It would be foolish to risk the quality and future of Tysons on a thoughtless casino development. The Board of Mason District Council urges our representatives in the General Assembly to defeat SB 675. Submitted by: Debbie Smith, Chair

MDC BOARD POSITION ON CASINOS in FAIRFAX COUNTY

The Board of Mason District Council is concerned that SR 675 may soon precipitate a referendum on casinos in Fairfax County while our Zoning Ordinance may be ill-prepared to place appropriate limitations on the use. In particular, if, in the future, the casino use were interpreted as a Commercial Recreation, Indoor use under the ordinance, it would be allowed by right in all C5 - C8 districts, in which case the county would be denied the necessary opportunity to set appropriate development conditions to adapt a casino to the surrounding community. If, on the other hand, the use were considered an Entertainment, Public use, it would still be allowed in C5 - C8 districts, but an SE would be required. This email recommends that the Board of Supervisors amend the ordinance, quickly as a minor modification, to make clear that a casino is considered an Entertainment, Public use. The ordinance defines the Entertainment, Public use as one catering predominately to adults with hours commonly beyond 10:00 PM where alcohol may be served: 

Entertainment, Public:  An establishment resembling a nightclub or bar that is open to the general public, where the primary use includes music, dancing, live entertainment, or other similar activities predominantly catering to adult customers. This use typically has business hours that extend beyond 10:00 p.m., may serve alcohol, and may require payment of an entrance fee through ticket sales or a cover charge. A restaurant with entertainment that exceeds the standard in subsection 4102.5.G(1) or a smoking lounge that meets this definition is deemed to be public entertainment. 

The Commercial Recreation, Indoor use covers a broad range of activities all of which cater to families, to children equally well as to adults, with no particular mention of either late hours or alcohol: Commercial Recreation, Indoor: An establishment providing recreational activities predominantly indoors. Examples of this use include movie theaters, music venues, bowling alleys, indoor skating facilities, amusement arcades, indoor shooting and archery ranges, tennis and similar courts, recreational crafting activities, and similar establishments where the predominant recreation or entertainment activity takes place inside a building. Consumption of food and beverages may occur but is not the primary activity. This use does not include any use meeting the definition of a golf course or country club; quasi-public park, playground, or athletic field; restaurant; or public entertainment. 

Determined proponents of casinos reasonably would be motivated to argue that the casino use is in the Commercial Recreation, Indoor category in order to avoid the SE requirement. 

To preclude that possibility, the Board of MDC recommends that a minor modification of one or both definitions be adopted to clearly and more appropriately put casinos in the Entertainment, Public category. 

For example, the first line of the Entertainment, Public use definition could be modified to read:  An establishment resembling a nightclub, bar, or casino that is open to the general public, where the primary use includes music, dancing, live entertainment, gambling, or other similar activities predominantly catering to adult customers.  

Perhaps, the development of the Zoning Ordinance has not anticipated the need to appropriately regulate casinos. That need now is urgently apparent and hopefully may be addressed quickly as suggested above. 

Respectfully, 

Board of Mason District Council 

Debbie Smith, Chair 

Carol Ofiesh, Treasurer 

Clyde Miller, Secretary

 Mark Crawford, Fairfax Federation Rep

AUTUMN LEAVES

By now, many of you know the County proposal to eliminate vacuum leaf collection has been put on hold for what we understand will be at least, the next two collection seasons.

Earlier, MDC sent a request to the Chairman and Board of Supervisors to hold a public meeting between public officials and affected County leaf collection customers to review the proposal  prior to the anticipated November public hearing.  We told you we would share the response we received.   Please see the email we received back from Chairman Jeff McKay:

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Chairman <Chairman@fairfaxcounty.gov>

Date: Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 12:59 PM

Subject: RE: Requesting a Meeting re: Vacuum Leaf Collection

To: Mason District Council <masondistrictcouncil.org@gmail.com>

Board of the Mason District Council of Community Associations,

Thank you for expressing your desire to learn more about the proposal to potentially discontinue County leaf collection services.  The Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES) has now withdrawn its proposal that had been asking the Board of Supervisors to end vacuum leaf service next winter. DPWES will be mailing a letter to all current vacuum leaf customers in the next few days with more information.Sincerely,

Jeffrey C. McKay

Chairman

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors

12000 Government Center Parkway

Suite 530

Fairfax, Virginia 22035

703-324-2321

OCTOBER 10, 2023

MDC REQUESTS A PUBLIC MEETING WITH COUNTY OFFICIALS AND AFFECTED COUNTY LEAF COLLECTION CUSTOMERS

The following request for a public forum to discuss the proposal to terminate County provided curbside vacuum leaf collection service after Winter 2023-24  was sent to the Board of Supervisors by the MDC board today.

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Mason District Council <masondistrictcouncil.org@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 2:53 PM

Subject: Requesting a Meeting re: Vacuum Leaf Collection

To: <chairman@fairfaxcounty.gov>, <mason@fairfaxcounty.gov>, <braddock@fairfaxcounty.gov>, <mtvernon@fairfaxcounty.gov>, <dranesville@fairfaxcounty.gov>, <provdist@fairfaxcounty.gov>, <huntermill@fairfaxcounty.gov>, <springfield@fairfaxcounty.gov>, <Franconia@fairfaxcounty.gov>, <sully@fairfaxcounty.gov>

Cc: Mason District Council <masondistrictcouncil.org@gmail.com>

Chairman Jeff McKay and Fairfax Board of Supervisors 

12000 Government Center Pkwy Fairfax, VA 22035 

Dear Chairman McKay and Board of Supervisors,

The Board of the Mason District Council of Community Associations (MDC) respectfully requests that the County hold a public meeting for residents impacted by the proposal to cease County curbside vacuum leaf collection.

This has been a topic of intense discussion for many residents.  Affected customers  would welcome an opportunity to learn more about the issues leading to the proposal to eliminate vacuum leaf service, review the results of the county survey, and share thoughts and concerns with public officials.

The process of moving directly to a public hearing on the proposal without any prior public discourse seems premature.

We appreciate your consideration of our request. 

Sincerely,

Debbie Smith - Chair

Clyde Miller - Secretary

Carol Ofiesh - Treasurer

Doug Birnie - Fairfax Federation Representative

October 2, 2023

Meeting with Candidates:

We had a good meeting on Thursday, Sept 28th with the candidates for Mason District Supervisor: Andres Jimenez and Terry Modglin.

Here is a link and passcode to watch the meeting:

https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/sWNkgyYbMUADSHifmy4ue2KVT7DgFcUksw5E7_1nvhfBs3Y_OwGwSb-PPLFL6rJy.qpenhTmY6IeEfROH

Passcode: 00!W0.wy

Next MDC Membership Meeting :

Thursday, September 28th, 2023 at 7pm via ZOOM

AUGUST 2023

IMPORTANT INFORMATION re: Fairfax County Leaf Collection 

https://publicinput.com/Customer/File/Full/f9eaa4d9-5742-4a2a-b19f-298b80912bc3

Fairfax County Vacuum Leaf Service 2022/2023 Season After Action Report 

This memorandum provides an update on the reasons for service delays in the 2022/2023 season vacuum leaf collection, actions taken by staff to reduce delays in the future, and a staff recommendation going forward. 

Background 

The Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES) performs trash, recycling, and yard waste collection for approximately 10% of County residences. Approximately half of the 10% of County residences served by DPWES also receive vacuum leaf service within Vacuum Leaf Sanitary Districts. In addition, there is a small percentage of County residences who are serviced by private haulers who are in Vacuum Leaf Sanitary Districts. Yard waste collection is a separate service from vacuum leaf collection, and yard waste is not collected by DPWES from December 25th through the end of February. 

Residents move leaves to the street where they are vacuumed using specialized equipment into trucks, which is hauled to DPWES facilities for either onsite shredding into leaf mulch or transferred to composting facilities outside of Fairfax County. DPWES has divided vacuum leaf residences into 10 service areas which are served sequentially (e.g., area 1, then area 2, then area 3) in three rounds of collection. Email updates are sent to customers who have subscribed for email updates providing advance notice of collection date, and collection dates are posted on signs in neighborhoods and online: fairfaxcounty.gov/publicworks/recycling-trash/leaf-collection-dates 

Because of the seasonal nature of vacuum leaf collection, DPWES relies on existing solid waste collection employees, limited term employees, and outside contractors for this service. The majority of DPWES vacuum leaf collection equipment is only used for leaf season, and is idle for the remainder of the year. Vacuum equipment cannot be used when leaves are frozen. 

Vacuum leaf collection is normally provided from November to January. The goal of the service is to collect all leaves at the curb in our vacuum leaf sanitary districts. Three rounds of collection are provided to cover seasonal variability over the fall and winter months in leaf drop. 

Vacuum leaf collection is funded by a collection levy of $0.012 per $100 of assessed real estate value for those residents served within our vacuum leaf sanitary districts. The levy generated approximately $2.3 million in Fiscal Year 2023. The Levy rate has been trending down over the past 5 years as property valuations have risen. In FY2018, DPWES lowered the rate from $0.015 to $0.013 per $100 of assessed real estate value. As a result, the net revenue collected in FY2018 is lower than FY2017 by approximately $250,000. In FY2020, DPWES lowered the rate again from $0.013 to $0.012 per $100 of assessed real estate value, resulting in FY2020 net revenue lower than FY2019 by around $90,000. 

 Just as residents may petition the Board of Supervisors to create Sanitary Districts in which DPWES would provide their solid waste collection services including vacuum leaf collection, residents may petition the Board of Supervisors to abolish (or de-create) Sanitary Districts to be removed from County vacuum leaf collection. More information about the de-creation process is here: fairfaxcounty.gov/publicworks/recyclingtrash/petition-process

 Status of 2022/2023 Leaf Season 

Vacuum leaf service began October 31, 2022. Although all three rounds of vacuum leaf collection were performed in all areas, leaf service was significantly delayed in all areas. The delays were driven by a combination of factors, including:  

Early leaf volumes were higher than normal, and total leaf volumes collected this year were more than 50% higher than last year. Leaf drop occurred heavily in the early part (October thru November) of the leaf season. Staff and contractor collection equipment capacity are limited. Higher volumes means trucks fill faster, leading to more time in transit hauling leaves and longer to complete any one area. Early season windstorms contributed additional leaf volume and staff in the DPWES Urban Forest Management Division note that seasonal variability in the timing of leaf drop is not unusual,. The higher volume and early leaf drop this season appears to be a regional phenomena, as the County’s vendor where yard waste is hauled to was temporarily closed by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality due to the size of leaf piles exceeding limits and creating a fire hazard.  

The new seasonal contractor DPWES hired was not fully prepared at the beginning of the season. DPWES supplements employees with contractors to perform the seasonal service. A new contractor won the bid, but their trucks needed unplanned adjustments at the beginning of the season to be compatible with the vacuum units. As a result, they were delayed in fielding all of their equipment.  

DPWES equipment was not fully ready at the beginning of the season. 

DPWES continues to be plagued by long delays in parts availability for our heavy equipment. Although DPWES began prepping equipment in August, not all equipment was functional at the beginning of October.  

Staff has experienced increasing difficulty in finding temporary contract workers willing to work this physically demanding role for only 4 months per year. This shortage impacted the ability to field the needed compliment of crews both this year and the past 2 years. This labor shortage is being experienced in other agency operations and is expected to continue.

  Initial attempts to bring on additional contractor resources were not successful. In November staff realized that available resources were inadequate to meet the collection demands this season. Staff attempted to procure a second contractor. However, the initial outreach to find a contractor was not successful, and it was not until December 1 that a second contractor could be located and put into service. There are landscaping contractors who perform leaf removal at a single residence scale. However, these contractors do not have the equipment to perform collection at a neighborhood scale.  

Prior communication methods were not adequate to inform residents of the continually shifting schedule. DPWES previously posted collection dates on yard signs placed within the service areas. Approximately 450 yard signs are placed at any one time. Changing these yard signs required DPWES staff to physically visit each sign and modify it. As schedules repeatedly changed, DPWES was unable to modify each sign on a timely basis. 

Actions Taken Reduce Delays 

DPWES took multiple actions to reduce service delays in the 2022/2023 season as follows:  

A second contractor was added in December using an emergency procurement process to increase collection capacity, but at substantial unplanned cost. The cost for the additional contractor was approximately $500,000 or approximately 20% of total annual leaf fund revenue. For future seasons, staff will procure multiple contractors at the beginning of the season.  

DPWES staff routinely worked overtime with 10-hour shifts and worked on Saturdays. This increased operating expenses this season by more than $100,000.  

Staff adjusted area yard signs. In lieu of manually updating all yard signs, staff replaced all existing signs in January 2023 with new signs displaying a QR Code and URL linking back to the DPWES website. This reduced staff time to manually update individual signs as collection schedules change.

Fiscal Impacts 

In fiscal year 2023, staff estimate that the Vacuum Leaf Fund will incur an approximate $900,000 deficit originating from the use of an additional contractor for emergency service, extra overtime for County employees, and temporary contract worker support due to staffing shortage. Unexpected price increases of the contracted services and disposal cost also contribute to the deficit. 

DPWES services only 10% of County residences with trash/recycling/yard waste collection and we serve approximately 5% of County residences with vacuum leaf service. Trash is a fee-based service, while vacuum leaf is a tax based on property value. Both are collected through Department of Tax Administration. 

DPWES proposed no increase to the $0.012/$100 value levy for vacuum leaf service in the Fiscal Year 2024 budget submittal. If the County holds the Levy Rate constant and operates the program with full staffing and fully functional equipment, the Vacuum Leaf Fund is projected to incur around $400,000 deficit at end of FY2024 due to the increase of personnel cost and disposal costs. This will further reduce the existing Reserve Fund balance. 

Staff Recommendation to Discontinue Leaf Collection Service 

Throughout the 2022/2023 service delay, DPWES received many concerns from customers about the public safety impacts of uncollected leaves including:  

Blocked storm drainages creating flooding concerns 

Pedestrian and vehicle conflicts when pedestrians are forced to walk in streets  

Fire hazards from vehicles parking on leaves  

Slip and fall hazards from walking on slippery leaves  

Reduced on-street parking 

The current service model also conflicts with Board of Supervisors environmental directives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and move towards zero waste outcomes. Carbon is expended to move leaves to the curb, to collect leaves, to transport leaves to the processing facility, and to transport the compost back into the landscape from which it generated. On-site composting of leaves is clearly a more sustainable model for managing leaves. 

Zero waste behavior changes are predicated on making it harder to generate and dispose of waste. In other words, without increasing the cost or difficulty of disposing waste, there is no meaningful incentive by the consumer to change their behavior. 

Even with the improvements being made in advance of next year’s collection, DPWES remains concerned about our ability to guarantee timely service due to unpredictable leaf drop timing. Because we prioritize public safety, and find that vacuum leaf service conflicts with Board of Supervisor sustainability goals, DPWES seeks guidance from the Board of Supervisors on the future of vacuum leaf service. 

Methods to Discontinue Leaf Service 

Formal action by the Board of Supervisors is needed to discontinue vacuum leaf service. Vacuum leaf service can be discontinued without impacting other trash, recycling, or yard waste collection services in Sanitary Districts. 

If the Board determines to discontinue vacuum leaf service, staff recommend it be done on a permanent basis by de-creating the existing Vacuum Leaf Sanitary Districts and eliminating the associated service tax. Abolishing or de-creating the vacuum leaf sanitary districts requires Board action following a noticed public hearing. 

Residents are billed for vacuum leaf service in January for that calendar year. Thus, residents have already been billed for the upcoming 2023/2024 winter vacuum leaf collection. Thus, DPWES will provide vacuum leaf service for the 2023/2024 winter leaf collection season. 

DPWES will conduct a public engagement campaign with existing vacuum leaf customers during the summer of 2023. The information campaign will address service impacts during the 2022/2023 season, provide information on alternative leaf management approaches, and elicit customer feedback on the possibility that the County may discontinue vacuum leaf service after the 2023/2024 winter season. 

Should the Board of Supervisors wish to discontinue vacuum leaf service after the engagement campaign, DPWES will schedule a public hearing in the spring of 2024 to decreate existing vacuum leaf districts. To lessen the impact on existing customers, DPWES will evaluate options including extension of yard waste collection into the winter months for Sanitary District customers and incentivizing home composting/leaf management.

MAY 3, 2023

MASON DISTRICT COUNCIL BOARD TESTIMONY  TO PLANNING COMMISION re: ZMOD

delivered by Debbie Smith

Planning Commission Meeting Video: https://video.fairfaxcounty.gov/player/clip/2868?view_id=10&redirect=true&h=938e50787fac9fcd0fdf71cb044b757c 

 
When the project to modernize the zoning ordinance was announced, many applauded the news of a more navigable, understandable, and device-friendly document. However, that effort morphed into something totally unexpected with the insertion of major changes for ALUs, HBBs and Accessory Structures – which effectively bypassed focused attention by the public on these controversial land use issues. Shockingly, these proposals remove the special permit process of public notice and public hearings, thereby depriving residents of the opportunity to be heard in these significant changes occurring within their own neighborhoods.

These ZMOD amendments have the capacity to forever change the nature of the county’s stable, single-family neighborhoods and should never have been casually slipped into the ordinance update. Each amendments demands a thorough, traditional, dedicated zoning ordinance amendment process with analysis and review, staff reports and public hearings.

It is evident, these changes are not community driven or supported. During your public hearing in Jan of 2021 you heard concerns from dozens of diverse communities – from Gum Springs to Great Falls; McLean to Mount Vernon; and Sully to Springfield, and you received hundreds of individual letters from residents overwhelmingly opposed to these changes. Even the county’s own ALU and HBB survey clearly highlighted the opposition to ZMOD proposals.

Unfortunately, on March 16, 2021 Chairman McKay stated that he believed there was an “intentional amount of significant misinformation” being spread and residents are “confused” about what is allowed in the current zoning ordinance vs. the new proposals. These statements are dismissive of the valid concerns of community leaders and residents who are not confused about the zoning changes being advanced via ZMOD.

The effect is clear:

We know that ALUs approved administratively can effortlessly transform single-family homes into duplexes. And we know (with this) comes an increase in population in areas not planned for such density, And since most of the county’s single family neighborhoods are not near mass transit, we know there will be impacts on parking and traffic, and congestion, and strains on parks, schools, services, and utilities, too.

And we know that HBB changes increase the commercialization of our neighborhoods with a long list of new, allowable home businesses able to operate throughout the day and which could include the use of various, tools and machinery incompatible with the residential nature of neighborhoods. And we know we can expect increased deliveries in and out of those businesses, and the potential for at least two businesses on each property with an ALU.

And we know, multiple enclosed accessory structures can be permitted with a total floor area up to 50% of the gross floor area of the dwelling, including structures up to 12 ft tall just 5 ft off the property line –-- imposing visual blight and privacy concerns, not to mention impacts to the environment with potential tree clearing, threats to open space, and run-off.

   ... And, we know that regulations for most of these changes are unrealistic for the county to enforce.

So, to prevent degradation of our neighborhoods, quality of life, and property values, residents must be included in the land use process. The special permit process and all of the protections against incompatible uses it provides to communities – should remain in place to resolve or mitigate potential impacts, and to receive an independent determination by the BZA that these changes would not damage the character of a neighborhood.

The significant zoning changes in ZMOD undermine existing protections for single family land-use. These changes threaten to alter the fundamental character and viability of such long standing communities, traditionally valued and protected in Fairfax County.

Therefore, the MDC Board requests removal of the ALU, HBB, and Accessory Structure amendments inappropriately included in the ZMOD project. These should proceed through the normal zoning ordinance amendment process that residents deserve.

Thank you for your consideration.

March 27, 2023

Important Update re: Fairfax County Zoning Ordinanance

The Virginia Supreme Court has voided Fairfax County's Zoning Ordinance (ZMOD) passed on March 23, 2021 in the midst of the COVID-19 emergency.

The court held that the vote by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors to approve ZMOD during a virtual hearing violated the Virginia Freedom of Information Act's open meeting requirements which were in place at that time.

From the opinion:

“By failing to hold the meetings at which Z-Mod was considered and ultimately adopted in compliance with VFOIA’s [Virginia Freedom of Information Act] open meeting requirements, the Board’s actions prevented the public from participating in the manner required by VFOIA, and thus, potentially limited public participation and input into the process.” 

"Having concluded that the Board adopted Z-Mod in a manner that violated the open meeting provisions of VFOIA, we turn to the question of remedy. The Residents argue that, because "Z-Mod could not be adopted through an electronic meeting[,]" the Board's purported adoption of Z-Mod was and remains "void ab initio[.]" We agree."

Here is a link to the Supreme Court opinion:

https://www.vacourts.gov/opinions/opnscvwp/1211143.pdf 

MDC will follow and pass along any communications from the county related to zoning matters which were approved during virtual hearings at that time, approved under ZMOD, as well information related to any in-process zoning cases.

Currently, ZMOD has been removed from the County's website.  The county website now shows that the The Zoning Ordinance presently in effect is the 1978 Zoning Ordinance (2021 Reprint). 

Sincerely,

Debbie Smith - Chair

Clyde Miller - Secretary

Carol Ofiesh - Treasurer

Doug Birnie - Fairfax Federation Rep

March 1, 2023

Dear All,

Below is a County update on the Site Specific Plan Amendment Process.  

Briefly, on Thursday, March 9th at 7:30 pm at the Fairfax County Government Center, the five remaining SSPA nominations for Mason District are scheduled to be reviewed at a Planning Commission public workshop (also available via live stream and phone participation).  See details in email below.

After some evaluation and recent community outreach meetings, County staff has made recommendations about nominations to add to the work program for continued review. 

The Little River Turnpike/Randolph Drive nomination is the only Mason District nomination of the five remaining that County staff did not recommend for addition to the work program.  

The remaining nominations were ranked using a Tiered system -- see excerpt and chart here:. 

" For each nomination recommended for inclusion on the work program, staff has proposed placement in Tier 1, 2 or 3, as further detailed below. Current work program items will also be organized in this format.

Tier 1. Items in Tier 1 are located in areas of development focus for the County or support an identified County priority such as providing affordable housing or enhancing office development. These nominations may be included as individual amendments or may be recommended to be studied in combination with other nominations or additional land, or in combination with pending studies already on the Work Program. Items in Tier 1 will have the highest priority for staff resources and timing. 

Tier 2. Items in Tier 2 are those that are valuable proposals but did not meet the criteria (of areas of focus or County priority) of Tier 1. Many of these amendments are expected to be reviewed in conjunction with a development application, and timing is generally recommended to begin following submission of such an application and as staff resources are available. 11 Review of Tier 2 proposals will not automatically be after Tier 1, but will be intermingled as resources are available. 

Tier 3. These items are proposed to be added to the Work Program, but as “deferred” items, with schedules to be developed following the completion of other studies or planning efforts that would influence the policy context for the consideration of the site-specific amendment, or as active Tier 1 and Tier 2 items are completed, and staff resources are available.

 Do Not Add to the Work Program. A nomination that is not added to the work program would not advance for further review." 

If your neighborhood has an interest in any of the nominations, we hope you will submit comments to the planning commission at plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov and to staff at DPDSSPA@FairfaxCounty.gov or participate in the meeting on March 9th.

Sincerely,

Debbie Smith 

Mason District Council of Community Associations

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNOUNCEMENTS

Message #643

Date: February 28, 2023

Source:  Fairfax County Department of Planning and Development (DPD), Planning Division

Subject:  UPDATE - Planning Commission SSPA Workshops – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program Recommendations, and Date Changes for Braddock, Franconia, and Providence Districts

The Planning Commission is scheduled to review Site-Specific Plan Amendment (SSPA) nominations in a series of workshops on March 2, March 9, and March 23, 2023 at 7:30pm to determine which should be selected and prioritized for formal study on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program. The workshops will be held at the Fairfax County Government Center (12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax VA 22035), and the public may attend in-person or by phone. Details on how the public may sign-up to participate by phone can be found on the Planning Commission webpage.

The staff recommended Work Program has been published on the SSPA webpage. A direct link to a summary of the recommendations, including specific recommendations on the SSPA nominations, can be accessed here:

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning-development/files/assets/documents/compplanamend/sspa/countywide/pc-whitepaper-nomination-screening.pdf

Workshop Format and Dates – UPDATED

(Note: In order to accommodate Planning Commissioner schedules, the Braddock and Franconia District nominations will now be reviewed on Thursday, March 9, 2023, and Providence nominations will now be reviewed on Thursday, March 23, 2023)

At each workshop, staff will provide an introduction to the SSPA process and the purpose of the Screening phase workshops, along with an overview of the selection considerations, the trends seen in the nominations, and the staff recommended Work Program. It is anticipated that nominations pulled for individual discussion at the workshops will be identified beforehand to the extent possible. The remainder of the nominations not identified for individual discussion will be listed in a consent agenda format. Members of the public and nominators may comment on any nomination scheduled for that evening. At the end each workshop, the Commissioners may take a preliminary vote on the proposed Work Program placement for nominations from that evening. A final vote on the Work Program will be held at the final workshop on March 23, 2023.

The Planning Commission will review the following nominations on the following nights:

Thursday, March 9, 2023, at 7:30 PM

Dranesville District

·        DR-001 – Innovation Center – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

·        DR-002 – Innovation Avenue – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

·        DR-003 – Elm Street Communities – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

·        DR-004 – Rock Hill Development – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

·        DR-005 – Spring Hill Road Homes – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

·        DR-006 – Dranesville United Methodist Church – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

Mason District

·        MA-001 – 6675 Little River Turnpike – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

·        MA-003 – Church Street – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

·        MA-004 – Cavalier Club – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

·        MA-006 – Gallows Road – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

·        MA-007 – Pistone’s – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

Franconia District

·       LE-001 – Rose Hill Shopping Center – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

·       LE-002 – 6320 Grovedale Drive – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

·       LE-003 – Beulah Street – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

·       LE-004 – Inova – Springfield Center Drive – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

·       LE-005 – Vine Street – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary 

·       LE-006 / 009 – Springfield Boulevard / Amherst Avenue Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

·       LE-007 – Sheridonna Lane – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

·       LE-008 – Frontier Drive – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary

Braddock District

·        BR-001 – Evergreen Investment Co. LLC – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary 

·        BR-002 – EQR Fairfax Corner – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary 

·        BR-003 – Church of the Good Shephard – Nomination | One Page Staff Summary 

Background

In the fall of 2022, Fairfax County received a total of 75 SSPA proposals, called “nominations”, to amend the Comprehensive Plan as part of the 2022-2023 SSPA nomination period. In December 2022, the Board of Supervisors accepted 70 nominations into the Screening Phase of the SSPA process to allow for community engagement and initial staff review. These nominations were discussed in a series of virtual and in-person community meetings held in January-February 2023. For more information on the community meetings, including recordings of the virtual meetings, please visit the SSPA Outreach page. To learn more about the process and participate, Fairfax County residents are encouraged to:

• Visit the SSPA Track a Nomination web page,

• Navigate to the interactive map of nominations,

• Submit a comment on any nomination to DPDSSPA@FairfaxCounty.gov.

What’s Next

Following the Planning Commission workshops, the Board of Supervisors is anticipated to take action on the Work Program in April 2023, which would begin the formal study for any nominations that are advanced for further review.

More information about the 2022-2023 Countywide SSPA process is available online: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/plan-amendments/sspa/countywide/2022-2023.

For information concerning the Plan Amendment process or the Comprehensive Plan, contact the Planner of the Day for the Planning Division at the Department of Planning and Development, at 703-324-1380, TTY 711 (Virginia Relay), Monday – Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. or visit the 7th floor, Herrity Building, 12055 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax.  More frequent updates on planning activities can be received by liking and following the  Fairfax County Land Use Planning Facebook page.

MDC Membership Mtg Tuesday, Jan 24th, 2023 7pm ZOOM

December 19th, 2022

UPDATE On Site Specific Plan Amendment Nominations

Three of the 8 submitted nominations were eliminated from consideration on December 6th 2022 at the Board of Supervisors Meeting.  The remaining 5 nominations can be found here under "Mason District": https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/plan-amendments/sspa/countywide/2022-2023/track-nomination 

Dec 2, 2022

As part of the County's SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS there were 8 Nominations submitted in the Mason District for changes to the comprehensive plan for specific sites.   Click on "Mason District"using the link below for details about each of the nominations.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/.../2022-2023/track-nomination

The nominations will advance to the Board of Supervisors for acceptance into the SSPA screening process on December 6, 2022. Staff and the community will review the accepted nominations in a series of community meetings in January 2023. Following the community meetings, the Planning Commission will hold a public workshop in February 2023 to consider and recommend nominations to be added to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program. Board action on the revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program, is anticipated in March 2023.

NEXT MDC MEETING TUES, OCT 25th 2022 at 7pm by ZOOM

link to be sent closer to meeting date.

Our fall MDC membership meeting will be Tuesday, Oct 25th at 7pm by Zoom.

We will send the Zoom link closer to the meeting date.

Agenda:

1) Presentation by leadership of the Mason District Police station 

Station Commander  - Cpt. Shawn Adcock, 

Assistant Commander - Lt. Mohammed Oluwa

Crime Prevention Officer - PFC Evan Dicker

2) MDC Officer elections (please make sure your dues are current - see below).

The following individuals have agreed to run for board positions:

Debbie Smith - Chair

Clyde Miller - Secretary

Carol Ofiesh  - Treasurer

Doug Birnie - Fairfax Federation Representative

Looking forward to a good meeting on Oct 25th

July 20, 2022

PARKING CHANGES PROPOSED  in Fairfax County

We are continuing to monitor the County's ongoing Parking Reimagined initiative which is re-evaluating off-street parking and loading requirements for new development to see if adjustments are needed in relation to current demand.  In the county's latest framework, it is proposed that parking adjustments be oriented to the character of the County's diverse areas so that "parking requirements would remain higher in more car-dependent areas with less parking required in areas where non-auto travel options make personal-vehicle ownership and use more discretionary."

Many residents who have been following this project have concerns about potential parking shortages which could create overflow parking issues in neighborhoods and local streets.  In addition there is concern over lower Metro ridership than before the pandemic likely due to Metro safety and performance/reliability concerns and growing telework opportunities, so people appear to be driving more.  There is also concern about increased development and density/intensity on land which had been dedicated to parking.  Project leaders are aware that if parking reductions are approved residents are strongly urging environmental benefits such as pairing the reduction in parking to a percentage increase in green space, however, this is not a component of the initiative.  

Several upcoming virtual meetings are scheduled for July and August including a presentation about the project to the planning commission's land use review committee.   We encourage you or others in your neighborhoods to participate in any of the meetings.  Please see information below:

Here is the County's most recent (June 2022) white paper on the project:  https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/boardofsupervisors/sites/boardofsupervisors/files/assets/meeting-materials/2022/june14-land-use-parking-white-paper.pdf

You can email thoughts and concerns to the entire planning commission at Plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov and to the Board of Supervisors at ClerktotheBOS@fairfaxcounty.gov.

Upcoming Meetings Schedule:

Parking Reimagined Virtual Open House #1

Wednesday, July 20, 2022 from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Virtual Meeting - Zoom 

Password: 856049

Call-In Number: 888 270 9936 (US Toll Free)

Conference Code: 928669

Presentation to Planning Commission’s Land Use Process Review Committee (LUPR)

Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. at the Fairfax County Government Center

You can watch or record the meeting on tv channel 16 or Watch online at Channel 16

Parking Reimagined Virtual Open House #2

Wednesday, August 10, 2022 from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Virtual Meeting - Zoom 

Password: 730036

Call-In Number: 888 270 9936 (US Toll Free)

Conference Code: 928669 

Parking Reimagined Virtual Open House #3

Saturday, August 27, 2022 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Virtual Meeting - Zoom 

Password: 443639

Call-In Number: 888 270 9936 (US Toll Free)

Conference Code: 928669

May 17, 2022

At our MDC Membership meeting on May 12, 2022  we focused on the pending Planning Commission public hearing on proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment PA 2020-CW-3CP which considers new residential uses near Dulles Airport. 

Clyde Miller, our MDC secretary reviewed the proposed changes for us at our MDC meeting. 

Clyde has submitted several papers to the planning commission and board of supervisors on the matter.  All of Clyde's  papers submitted to the county can be found in the link in his letter below.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All -

The Board of Supervisors is promoting a Comprehensive Plan amendment to encourage residential development on the borders of Dulles airport, not a good idea.  Airports and residential uses are natural enemies.  Residents grow weary of the aircraft noise and complain to the airport, their local government, even Congress, and the airport is forced to deal with the fallout.  The attached paper argues that the BOS should not adopt the amendment, PA 2020-CW-3CP.  The paper also is available online at https://holmesrun.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Paper-4_2022_05_04.pdf.

With PA 2020-CW-3CP the Board is forging ahead with their residential development of a 5-sq-mile area nearby the airport heedless of concerns expressed by the airport, local reps of the aviation industry at Dulles, and the Board's consultant.  The noise mitigation standard for home interiors that they have adopted is wholly inadequate and they’ve made little effort to assure that the developments will provide viable neighborhoods for families given the noise.  The Board apparently has little or no experience promoting residential development in an airport environment, and they are making decisions based on a raft of misinformation provided by similarly inexperienced staff.  What they do know is that some of them want the residential development.  The Board is risking subjecting Dulles to the grim fate that National airport endures - residents living in a swamp of highly annoying aircraft noise and the airport swamped by noise complaints. (In 2018 National received 76,000 complaints.  Dulles today receives only 1500-2000 per year.)

The PC hearing is Wednesday.  Hopefully, they will hear from many residents that the PA should not be supported.

Section 4 of the paper is the essential part.

Best,

Clyde

February 2022

At our our February 23rd virtual meeting at 7pm we a presentation by Casey Judge from Fairfax County’s Planning Division, to review the County's current signs regulations (such as how the county regulates common sign types, enforcement by the Department of Code Compliance, and information about signs in the right-of-way).  The county is interested in hearing from the community about what is working and what isn’t working in the current signs ordinance. They will also be considering suggested amendments as part of the Signs Part II Zoning Ordinance Amendment.   We will need to follow this in order to protect against concerns about larger, brighter signs near or in residential zones.

We  also invited Michael Davis a speaker from the County to provide a presentation about the county's initiative to evaluate existing off-street parking and loading rates to determine if adjustment is appropriate at this time.   It appears that reductions are being explored in the county's more dense, transist-oriented areas.   Many are following this project with interest recognizing that car transit is abundant and that many residents living close to transit still use cars and parking in those areas remains challenging.

Finally we had a conversation about difficulties neighborhood associations without insurance are experiencing reserving rooms in county school buildings for meetings.  If your community has encountered this situation we welcome your input..

July 6, 2021 

Update:  Drug Needle Exchange Program 

MDC was notified by Supervisor Penny Gross that Nova Salud notified the Fairfax County Health Department of its decision to discontinue the proposed needle exchange program, due to an inability to secure private funding for the supplies needed  While their successful Comprehensive Harm Reduction program will continue, it will focus on testing, education, and referral for its clients.

June 2021

Update: the meetings on June 23 and 24 related to the drug needle exchange were canceled.

NOTICE:  DRUG NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAM  PROPOSED ON SLEEPY HOLLOW RD

Upcoming Meetings re:  DRUG NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAM  on Sleepy Hollow Rd.

Below is information for several upcoming virtual community meetings regarding a drug needle exchange program planned on Sleepy Hollow Road near Castle Rd.

Community meetings were scheduled early last year but were canceled when the COVID lockdown began.

The links below are from the Annanandale Blog and provide some background.

Recent Annandale Blog Article:

https://annandaleva.blogspot.com/.../community-invited-to...

Annandale Blog Article from March 2020

https://annandaleva.blogspot.com/.../needle-exchange...

MTG REGISTRATION INFO from the COUNTY:

Tuesday, June 22, 2021 from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm

https://www.eventbrite.com/.../community-conversation-on...

Wednesday, June 23, 2021 from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm

https://www.eventbrite.com/.../community-conversation-on...

Thursday, June 24, 2021 from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm

https://www.eventbrite.com/.../community-conversation-on...

Please share this information widely among your community.

Respectfully,

Carla Paredes Gomez

Community Health Specialist

Community Health Development Division

Fairfax County Health Department

10777 Main Street. Suite 320

Fairfax, VA 22030

Phone: (703) 246-6016

Cell: (703) 350-2074

April 2021     ZMOD Decision Summary

Dear All,

Despite hundreds of letters from residents and strenuous opposition from citizen associations across the county, the Board of Supervisors approved controversial changes to the zoning ordinance related to accessory apartments (Accessory Living Units “ALUs”) , home businesses,  freestanding accessory structures, and flags/flagpoles that were injected into its zoning modernization project (zMOD). 

Here, in Mason District, there was tremendous opposition from communities and individual residents in the form of resolutions, oral testimony, and letters.  Nevertheless, Mason District Supervisor Gross voted with six other Board members to approve zMOD.  Three supervisors -- Herrity, Alcorn and Storck voted to not approve. 

More than 75 speakers testified at the Board of Supervisors’ public hearing  -- many representing citizens associations around the county and overwhelmingly opposed the substantive zoning changes proposed through zMOD.   Here are links to each of the zMOD public hearings.

Planning Commission zMOD Public Hearing January 28, 2021:   http://video.fairfaxcounty.gov/player/clip/1969?view_id=10&redirect=true

Board of Supervisors zMOD Public Hearing March 9, 2021:  http://video.fairfaxcounty.gov/player/clip/2019?view_id=7&redirect=true

Some of the notable changes in ZMOD include:

Accessory Apartments (ALUs)  (see page 268)

1) Removes the requirement for a special permit including public notice and public hearings when a homeowner seeks to construct a basic accessory apartment (ALU) within their single-family detached dwelling.  With the zMOD changes, the apartments will be approved via simple administrative permit.  Neighbors will not be notified nor will they have an opportunity to influence decisions on basic ALUs in public hearings.

2) Removes the requirement that someone aged 55 or older or with a disability must reside in either the primary dwelling or in the accessory apartment. 

3) Retains the requirement that the property owner must reside in either the primary dwelling or the accessory apartment.

4) Allows the use of an entire basement for an ALU.

Home Based Businesses   (see page 274)

1) Expands the range of home businesses allowed while eliminating essential current regulations that protect neighborhoods from home business operations. New business categories include:  health and exercise facilities, retail sales of anything legal to sell in Virginia and small-scale production of anything legal to manufacture. Retail sales and small-scale production are limited to making sales and delivering items exclusively online or off-site.

2)  Prohibits on-site customers or clients without approval of a special permit, (public notice and hearing with the Board of Zoning Appeals) except for instructional activities with a health and exercise facility or specialized instruction center, where up to four students at a time and eight in a day are allowed.

3) Eliminates limits on equipment or processes used by home businesses other than a prohibition of hazardous materials that would require a permit under the county fire prevention code.

4) Eliminates the Department of Code Compliance’s right to inspect a home business.

Accessory Structures  (see page 256)

1) Allows freestanding accessory structures, such as sheds, children’s play equipment, and gazebos, up to 12 feet in height to be located 5 feet from the side and rear lot lines

2) Allows enclosed accessory structures up to 20 ft. in height

3) Allows any number of enclosed accessory structures with a cumulative sq. footage of up to 50% of the gross floor area of the dwelling on lots up to 36,000 sf.

Flags and Flagpoles  (see page 268)

1) Adds a maximum flagpole height of 25 feet for lots with single-family dwellings or manufactured homes and 60 feet for lots with all other uses, with the ability to request a special permit for an increased height.

2) Does not limit size of flags

Lawsuits

Many residents and associations are frustrated by the Board’s zMOD decision and believe that considering and acting on zMOD during the pandemic exceeded power granted to the Board during the COVID emergency.  There are also concerns related to the substance of zMOD. As a result, one lawsuit has been filed and a second soon will follow.  Thus far, the Alliance Law Group which is representing residents in these matters has done the first case largely on a pro bono basis.  However, with potential appeals, complexities of the second case, and opposition from the County, money will be needed for growing legal costs and fees.  Residents from around the county have recently launched a funding effort.  

If you would like more information,you can be in touch with:

Adrienne Whyte at ReclaimFairfaxCounty@gmail.com

or

To contribute you can mail a check to:

Reclaim Fairfax County

c/o Adrienne Whyte

6704 West Falls Way

Falls Church, VA 22046 

We are grateful to all who participated in the zMOD process. 

Sincerely,

Debbie Smith - Chair

Carol Turner – Vice Chair

Clyde Miller – Secretary

Michael Melanson – Fairfax Federation Representative

March 2021

Link to ZMOD Slide Presentation used during MDC Membership Meeting March 4th, 2021

zMOD Issues & Responses (wordpress.com)

These slides review several of the controversial proposed zoning changes being made by the county, the planning commission's recommendations on several of the proposals, and concerns expressed by homeowners and residents about the proposed changes.

February 2021

Our next MDC virtual meeting will be Wednesday, March 3rd at 7pm.  A meeting link and dial-in numbers will be forwarded in a separate email.  All members of your neighborhoods are welcome to participate.

The main item on the agenda will be a review of the County’s project to update/modernize the zoning ordinance – ZMOD.  We wrote to you previously about some of the more substantive proposals in the county’s ZMOD draft that have the potential to seriously impact single family neighborhoods. Since then, there was a 5.5 hour Planning Commission ZMOD public hearing in which we participated.  We thank all of you who wrote and spoke as well.  Due to the volume of speakers and questions and concerns presented, the Planning Commission deferred a decision on ZMOD until Feb 24th.  The Board of Supervisors is currently scheduled to hold its ZMOD public hearing on Tuesday, March 9th.  We hope you and your communities will consider submitting comments after our meeting.

Also related to ZMOD, county residents concerned about several ZMOD proposed zoning changes have created a survey which they asked us to share. Feel free to circulate the survey.  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FFXZMOD

We will also have a brief update on the expansion of Justice H.S. and a plan to construct a school parking lot in nearby Justice Park which is under discussion between Fairfax County Public Schools and the Fairfax County Park Authority.

Looking forward to a good meeting on March 3rd.

Sincerely,

Debbie Smith

Carol Turner

Clyde Miller

Michael Melanson  

January 28, 2021

Mason District Council Board Testimony to Planning Commission  at Public Hearing re: ZMOD

Dear Commissioner Murphy and Planning Commissioners:

Quality of life in our residential neighborhoods is key to Fairfax County’s economic success. If Fairfax County hopes to attract and retain the skilled workforce that is essential to its economic success, the county must protect and preserve established, safe, and livable residential neighborhoods. The appeal of our neighborhoods will determine whether current homeowners remain and whether new families choose to live here.

One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to protect residential communities from incompatible development. Alarmingly, ZMOD proposes to dissolve essential community protections at the same time dashing the means by which citizens are empowered to protect their neighborhoods. The Board of MDC is concerned that ZMOD's changes to ordinance regulations will degrade the quality of home life for residents to the point of impeding economic success as our current and future workforce looks for family-friendly neighborhoods elsewhere.

ZMOD's expansive proposals for new home businesses promise to commercialize our neighborhoods with activities that have no place in residential communities, including unlimited retail sales outlets that would allow residents to sell anything legal to sell, and small-scale production facilities allowed to manufacture anything legal to make. Retail sales and sales of goods manufactured would be limited to the Internet, but customers would be allowed on site to shop, and suppliers, sales people, and aficionados of the craft would be allowed on site as well.

Health and exercise facilities would be allowed any activity arguably related to that topic. All these new uses would be allowed by-right with administrative permits. There would be no limits on hours of operation and no limit on the equipment used on-site. While air compressors and pneumatic tools throbbing through the evening may be acceptable to the county, we are certain that they would not be acceptable to the affected neighbors.

And the county would have no authority to inspect any home business. If a neighbor lodged a complaint with Department of Code Compliance about an activity of concern at the business next door, DCC would have no right to inspect the property. The current ordinance gives the county the right to inspect every home business, either by ordinance language or by provisions in special permits. ZMOD unbelievably would relinquish this authority, presumably with the notion that the county should have no role whatsoever in assuring that home businesses comply with regulations. And that's unacceptable!

ZMOD's proposals for home businesses are simply out of bounds and should not be accepted.

ZMOD proposes expansive new floor area in enclosed freestanding structures, perhaps to house the new home businesses. Today these structures are limited to one in number not to exceed 200 sq ft in area. However, ZMOD proposes to allow any number of enclosed structures with a total floor area up to 50% of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit. In the yard of a modest 2000 sq ft home, 1000 sq ft of accessory buildings would be allowed. Included could be structures up to 12 ft tall within 5 ft of the property line - potential workshops for home businesses just five feet away from the neighbor's yard. In an April 23, 2019 public briefing, staff illogically justified allowing 12 ft structures within 5 ft of neighbors based on their analysis of building location errors and DCC complaints that showed such structures to be a frequent source of resident complaints. The reasoning was that the new 12-ft/5-ft rule would make the structures legal and complaints would vanish. Logically, of course, the data show that the structures are annoying to neighbors and the 12-ft/5-ft rule should not be adopted. Enclosed freestanding accessory structures should be limited to one building not to exceed 200 sq ft with additional buildings and floor area available by special permit.

The accessory living unit proposal is simply careless. One can understand an interest in increased flexibility in ALU regulations as a means for increasing the housing supply. But it is not helpful to promote them as affordable housing when they would not be designated as such and much of the evidence nationwide is that ALU's more frequently are offered at market-rates. In addition, it is not helpful to promote them as a principal untapped opportunity for new housing when all evidence tells us that the demand for them is light. And it is not helpful to propose to strip ALU regulations away and then wait to see what happens hoping that what happens doesn't happen next door to your home. When Chairman McKay was asked to justify the pressure on changing ALU regulations, he is quoted as saying it would be a way to legalize the existing un-permitted accessory dwelling units in the county today. That answer, like the justification for the 12-ft/5-ft rule, is no justification for changing the zoning ordinance.

Changes to ALU regulations should be thought through. Unintended consequences should be identified and mitigated. Until that happens, ALU regulations should not be changed.

Among email conversations with other residents, the principal question is WHY? Why are residents being dragged thru this blizzard of draconian proposals to upset the zoning ordinance in the midst of the pain and dislocations of the Covid pandemic? Is it to promote the economic success of the county? In all of the documents we have read and briefings attended, we have encountered not a single word that associated a ZMOD proposal with economic success. None.

Nothing has been offered to indicate that ZMOD regulations changes would contribute to anything except change itself. Supervisors have allowed ZMOD to become a political exercise to demonstrate their willingness to rollback regulations and push residents out of the land use management process. At the same time, they are distracting the community's attention and sapping its strength under the worst possible circumstances.

Legal opinion has determined that rewriting the county’s zoning ordinance far exceeds the boundaries the Governor has established regarding business that may be conducted by public bodies meeting electronically during the pandemic emergency. At the same time, informed residents clearly are opposed to ZMOD’s proposed regulation changes. The MDC Board believes now would be the right time to table the changes, take time to think them through, and defer next steps until such time as the pandemic emergency is behind us and the normal ordinance amendment process with staff reports and public hearings is reestablished.

Sincerely,

Debbie Smith – Chair

Carol Turner – Vice Chair

Clyde Miller – Secretary

Michael Melanson – Fairfax Federation Representative

January 19, 2021

Dear MDC Members,

We hope you and your associations will consider weighing in on several significant zoning changes being proposed by Fairfax County as part of the Zoning Ordinance Modernization Project (zMOD).  Some primary concerns include 1) relaxing regulations for interior accessory apartments (ALUs) which could allow apartments in any single family detached home and 2) relaxing regulations to allow more Home Based Businesses (HBB) with increased customer activity in all types of dwellings. The county is also proposing to eliminate the public hearing process which has historically accompanied applications for each of these uses and approve them instead, through a simple administrative permit without notifying or seeking input from neighbors. These proposed changes have sparked concern about impacts on the character of single-family detached communities and increased commercialization in all residential neighborhoods. 

Use this link https://www.act4fairfax.net/communityresponses to see sample letters and resolutions from around the county which you or your associations can support and endorse or use to draft separate letters and resolutions. In particular, is the remarkably, comprehensive commentary about zMOD changes by MDC Secretary, Clyde Miller on behalf of his citizens association Holmes Run Valley.  

Please write. Every letter is important. It doesn’t have to be long.

The Planning Commission will hold a Virtual Public Hearing about the proposed zoning changes on Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 7:30 p.m.

To speak at the Planning Commission Virtual Hearing or to submit video testimony, please sign up here:  https://wwwfairfaxcounty.gov/planningcommission/speaker  and also see here: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planningcommission/ways-to-provide-public-hearing-testimony

You can also write to all members of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission with your thoughts and concerns at: clerktothebos@fairfaxcounty.gov  and plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov  and reference “zMOD” in the subject line.  Please sign your name and include your address in the correspondence. 

Sincerely,

Mason District Council of Community Associations Board

Debbie Smith - Chair

Carol Turner – Vice Chair

Clyde Miller – Secretary

Michael Melanson – Fairfax Federation Representative

June 8, 2020  

IMPORTANT -  PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES BY THE COUNTY re: ACCESSORY DWELLINGS

WATCH  - Concerned Planning Commissioners Hear County's Prpopsed Changes for Accessory Dwellings and Home Businesses on May 7th:  http://video.fairfaxcounty.gov/player/clip/1708?view_id=10 

GOOD RESOURCE  - Paper on the county's proposed changes to weaken restrictions on Accessory Dwelling Units and Home Businesses prepared by MDC Board member Clyde Miller, President of Homes Run Valley Citizens Association: https://holmesrun.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/20200420_zmod_adu_hhb_revc.pdf.

October 15, 2020

Concerns About ZMOD

Since we last posted here in the spring (see below) about concerns with proposed zoning changes being included in the County’s zoning ordinance modernization project, zMOD, the County has completed a consolidated zoning ordinance draft document.

Across the County, concern is growing – especially over proposed zoning changes related to single family neighborhoods– mainly changes to accessory apartments within single family detached homes and changes easing limitations on home based businesses operating in any type dwelling.

A survey on these two issues was also completed by the County.  Results showed strong opposition to changes loosening limitations and restrictions like eliminating public notice/hearings and allowing increased business activity in homes.  See County Survey Results.

Other District Council’s and associations in the County are now producing their own summaries about these issues.  We want to share this excellent summary from Sully District Council in the western portion of Fairfax County:

http://www.sullydistrict.org/references/20201005_JSDLU&TCLettertoHOAsReMajorImpacts.pdf

You, your association and neighbors are urged to write to county representatives to express your opinion on these zoning proposals which have the potential to have serious impacts on neighborhoods. County officials need to know where you stand.

Contact Information:

Please reference “zMOD” in your email subject line.

Board of Supervisors  - clerktothebos@fairfaxcounty.gov

Planning Commission – plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov

Dept of Planning and Development -  dpdzmodcomments@fairfaxcounty.gov

June 8, 2020

Dear Neighbors, 

While undertaking a project to modernize and better organize the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance (zMOD), county staff has proposed sweeping and controversial amendments to regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units (ADUs).  The MDC Board believes that the proposed changes are detrimental to the welfare of single-family home communities and should not be adopted.

What’s an ADU? An ADU is a dwelling unit limited to two bedrooms and two occupants, complete with a full kitchen, that may be constructed as an accessory to any single-family detached home. Currently, on lots less than 2 acres, the ADU must be inside the house, (an interior ADU). On lots larger than 2 acres, the ADU may be interior or standalone (an exterior ADU). There can be only one ADU on a property and the homeowner is required to live on the property. The interior ADU effectively turns the single-family home into a duplex. The standalone ADU adds a second home to the property.

Current ADU Regulations. ADUs were introduced into the zoning ordinance some time ago as a housing option for older and/or disabled residents, in particular, family members of the property owner who are either disabled or at least 55 years of age in general need of monitoring and support. Today, the approval of both interior and exterior ADUs requires a special permit, a process that assures transparency and some measure of compatibility of the ADUwith the community. Neighbors receive notice in the mail that an ADU application has been filed, and sign boards are posted on the property with the same message. A public hearing is held before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to provide neighbors an opportunity to state and resolve their concerns, and the BZA is required to make a determination that the ADU would be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. The BZA is an independent body appointed by the Circuit Court.

Proposed Amendments. The zMOD program is proposing to:

Delete the requirement that one or both occupants of the ADU must be either disabled or at least 55 years of age.

Current regulations stipulate that occupants of a single-family detached home may include no more than 4 people unrelated by blood or marriage.  The proposed regulations would allow conversion of single-family homes with 4 unrelated people and one kitchen into duplexes with 6 unrelated people and 2 kitchens.

Proposed changes also include eliminating the required special permit and the entire public hearing process for a routine administrative permit instead.

Concerns. One concern is the likelihood that the amendment would encourage a proliferation of boarding houses - a blight that the county has not been able to manage.

A second concern is the option that the amendments would provide developers to tear down homes in single-family neighborhoods and build duplexes in their place.

Perhaps a greater concern is the amendment’s intention to eliminate the special permit requirement for interior ADUs. This change would eliminate all of the protection against incompatible development that the special permit process provides communities.  There would be no notification to neighbors of the intention to install an interior ADU, no BZA hearing for resolving community concerns, and no independent determination by the BZA that an interior ADU would not damage the character of the neighborhood.  Communities would be left defenseless.

And finally, allowing single-family dwellings to be converted into multi-family dwellings will create an increase in population in areas not planned for such density. Without adequate planning and funding for essential infrastructure to support potential new residents there will be severe impacts on parking, traffic, schools, parks, hospitals, government services and utilities.

Conclusion:  The MDC Board supports the current ADU regulations that are focused on providing housing for older and/or disabled residents and are approved by special permits.  The Board does not support the proposal to drop the age/disability requirement and opposes in the strongest possible terms the proposal to drop the special permit requirement 

Engage:  Even though the County’s online surveys have closed, the County is still accepting public comment.  Their short videos on accessory dwellings and home based businesses can be viewed here: zMOD website.  You can send your questions and submit feedback on all aspects of zMOD, including on accessory dwelling units and home-based businesses, to the County Planning and Zoning Department, the Board of  Supervisors and the Planning Commission at: DPZZMODComments@fairfaxcounty.gov; clerktothebos@fairfaxcounty.gov; plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov.

Sincerely, 

The Board of Mason District Council of Community Associations

Debbie Smith – Chair

Carol Turner-  Vice Chair

Clyde Miller – Secretary

Debbie Fraser – Treasurer

Jennifer Abdelmalek – Fairfax Federation Representative

May 7th, 2020 

WATCH  - Concerned Planning Commissioners Hear County's Prpopsed Changes for Accessory Dwellings and Home Businesses  http://video.fairfaxcounty.gov/player/clip/1708?view_id=10 

GOOD RESOURCE  - Paper on the county's proposed changes to weaken restrictions on Accessory Dwelling Units and Home Businesses prepared by MDC Board member Clyde Miller, President of Homes Run Valley Citizens Association: https://holmesrun.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/20200420_zmod_adu_hhb_revc.pdf.

April 22, 2020

IMPORTANT - ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS COUNTY PROPOSED CHANGES

Dear MDC Members, 

While undertaking a project to modernize and better organize the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance (zMOD), county staff has proposed sweeping and controversial amendments to regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) with the stated objective of increasing the supply of affordable housing. The MDC Board believes that the proposed changes are detrimental to the welfare of single-family home communities and should not be adopted.

What’s an ADU? An ADU is a dwelling unit limited to two bedrooms and two occupants, complete with a full kitchen, that may be constructed as an accessory to any single-family detached home. Currently, on lots less than 2 acres, the ADU must be inside the house, (an interior ADU). On lots larger than 2 acres, the ADU may be interior or standalone (an exterior ADU). There can be only one ADU on a property and the homeowner is required to live on the property. The interior ADU effectively turns the single-family home into a duplex. The standalone ADU adds a second home to the property.

Current ADU Regulations. ADUs were introduced into the zoning ordinance some time ago as a housing option for older and/or disabled residents, in particular, family members of the property owner who are either disabled or at least 55 years of age in general need of monitoring and support. Today, the approval of both interior and exterior ADUs requires a special permit, a process that assures transparency and some measure of compatibility of the ADU with the community. Neighbors receive notice in the mail that an ADU application has been filed, and sign boards are posted on the property with the same message. A public hearing is held before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to provide neighbors an opportunity to state and resolve their concerns, and the BZA is required to make a determination that the ADU would be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. The BZA is an independent body appointed by the Circuit Court.

Proposed Amendments. The zMOD program is proposing to:

Change the intent and purpose of ADUs from housing for the elderly and disabled to a mechanism ostensibly for providing affordable housing. In fact, the proposal does nothing to ensure affordability, and simply deletes the requirement that one or both occupants of the ADU must be either disabled or at least 55 years of age.

Current regulations stipulate that occupants of a single-family detached home may include no more than 4 people unrelated by blood or marriage.  The proposed regulations would allow conversion of single-family homes with 4 unrelated people and one kitchen into duplexes with 6 unrelated people and 2 kitchens.

Proposed changes also include eliminating the required special permit and the entire public hearing process for a routine administrative permit instead.

Concerns. One concern is the likelihood that the amendment would encourage a proliferation of boarding houses - a blight that the county has not been able to manage.

A second concern is the option that the amendments would provide developers to tear down homes in single-family neighborhoods and build duplexes in their place.

Perhaps a greater concern is the amendment’s intention to eliminate the special permit requirement for interior ADUs. This change would eliminate all of the protection against incompatible development that the special permit process provides communities.  There would be no notification to neighbors of the intention to install an interior ADU, no BZA hearing for resolving community concerns, and no independent determination by the BZA that an interior ADU would not damage the character of the neighborhood.  Communities would be left defenseless.

And finally, allowing single-family dwellings to be converted into multi-family dwellings will create an increase in population in areas not planned for such density. Without adequate planning and funding for essential infrastructure to support potential new residents there will be severe impacts on parking, traffic, schools, parks, hospitals, government services and utilities.

Conclusion:  The MDC Board supports the current ADU regulations that are focused on providing housing for older and/or disabled residents and are approved by special permits.  The Board does not support the proposal to drop the age/disability requirement and opposes in the strongest possible terms the proposal to drop the special permit requirement.

Engage:  You can find the zMOD accessory dwelling unit video and the survey at https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/zmod.  The video is under the heading VIDEOS and the survey under SURVEYS.  Please encourage your membership to engage and respond to the survey.

Thank you.

The Board of Mason District Council of Community Associations

Debbie Smith – Chair

Carol Turner-  Vice Chair

Clyde Miller – Secretary

Debbie Fraser – Treasurer

Jennifer Abdelmalek – Fairfax Federation Representative

Feb. 28, 2020

Proposed Bike Lanes, Road Restriping/ Narrowing in Mason

COMMUNITY MTG Mar. 3, 6:30pm - Mason Govt Cntr, 6507 Columbia Pike

Streets on the list for bike lanes include portions of: Carlin Springs, Scoville Street, Lacy Boulevard, Lafayette Village Drive, Maple Place, Markham Street, S. George Mason Drive. Provide Feedback by March 17, 2020 (see links in article lhere:  https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/transportation/node/723

January 13, 2020

June 2021

Update: the meetings on June 23 and 24 were canceled.

NOTICE:  DRUG NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAM  PROPOSED ON SLEEPY HOLLOW RD

Upcoming Meetings re:  DRUG NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAM  on Sleepy Hollow Rd.

Below is information for several upcoming virtual community meetings regarding a drug needle exchange program planned on Sleepy Hollow Road near Castle Rd.

Community meetings were scheduled early last year but were canceled when the COVID lockdown began.

The links below are from the Annanandale Blog and provide some background.

Recent Annandale Blog Article:

https://annandaleva.blogspot.com/.../community-invited-to...

Annandale Blog Article from March 2020

https://annandaleva.blogspot.com/.../needle-exchange...

MTG REGISTRATION INFO from the COUNTY:

Tuesday, June 22, 2021 from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm

https://www.eventbrite.com/.../community-conversation-on...

Wednesday, June 23, 2021 from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm

https://www.eventbrite.com/.../community-conversation-on...

Thursday, June 24, 2021 from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm

https://www.eventbrite.com/.../community-conversation-on...

Please share this information widely among your community.

Respectfully,

Carla Paredes Gomez

Community Health Specialist

Community Health Development Division

Fairfax County Health Department

10777 Main Street. Suite 320

Fairfax, VA 22030

Phone: (703) 246-6016

Cell: (703) 350-2074

April 2021     ZMOD Decision Summary

Dear All,

Despite hundreds of letters from residents and strenuous opposition from citizen associations across the county, the Board of Supervisors approved controversial changes to the zoning ordinance related to accessory apartments (Accessory Living Units “ALUs”) , home businesses,  freestanding accessory structures, and flags/flagpoles that were injected into its zoning modernization project (zMOD). 

Here, in Mason District, there was tremendous opposition from communities and individual residents in the form of resolutions, oral testimony, and letters.  Nevertheless, Mason District Supervisor Gross voted with six other Board members to approve zMOD.  Three supervisors -- Herrity, Alcorn and Storck voted to not approve. 

More than 75 speakers testified at the Board of Supervisors’ public hearing  -- many representing citizens associations around the county and overwhelmingly opposed the substantive zoning changes proposed through zMOD.   Here are links to each of the zMOD public hearings.

Planning Commission zMOD Public Hearing January 28, 2021:   http://video.fairfaxcounty.gov/player/clip/1969?view_id=10&redirect=true

Board of Supervisors zMOD Public Hearing March 9, 2021:  http://video.fairfaxcounty.gov/player/clip/2019?view_id=7&redirect=true

Some of the notable changes in ZMOD include:

Accessory Apartments (ALUs)  (see page 268)

1) Removes the requirement for a special permit including public notice and public hearings when a homeowner seeks to construct a basic accessory apartment (ALU) within their single-family detached dwelling.  With the zMOD changes, the apartments will be approved via simple administrative permit.  Neighbors will not be notified nor will they have an opportunity to influence decisions on basic ALUs in public hearings.

2) Removes the requirement that someone aged 55 or older or with a disability must reside in either the primary dwelling or in the accessory apartment. 

3) Retains the requirement that the property owner must reside in either the primary dwelling or the accessory apartment.

4) Allows the use of an entire basement for an ALU.

Home Based Businesses   (see page 274)

1) Expands the range of home businesses allowed while eliminating essential current regulations that protect neighborhoods from home business operations. New business categories include:  health and exercise facilities, retail sales of anything legal to sell in Virginia and small-scale production of anything legal to manufacture. Retail sales and small-scale production are limited to making sales and delivering items exclusively online or off-site.

2)  Prohibits on-site customers or clients without approval of a special permit, (public notice and hearing with the Board of Zoning Appeals) except for instructional activities with a health and exercise facility or specialized instruction center, where up to four students at a time and eight in a day are allowed.

3) Eliminates limits on equipment or processes used by home businesses other than a prohibition of hazardous materials that would require a permit under the county fire prevention code.

4) Eliminates the Department of Code Compliance’s right to inspect a home business.

Accessory Structures  (see page 256)

1) Allows freestanding accessory structures, such as sheds, children’s play equipment, and gazebos, up to 12 feet in height to be located 5 feet from the side and rear lot lines

2) Allows enclosed accessory structures up to 20 ft. in height

3) Allows any number of enclosed accessory structures with a cumulative sq. footage of up to 50% of the gross floor area of the dwelling on lots up to 36,000 sf.

Flags and Flagpoles  (see page 268)

1) Adds a maximum flagpole height of 25 feet for lots with single-family dwellings or manufactured homes and 60 feet for lots with all other uses, with the ability to request a special permit for an increased height.

2) Does not limit size of flags

Lawsuits

Many residents and associations are frustrated by the Board’s zMOD decision and believe that considering and acting on zMOD during the pandemic exceeded power granted to the Board during the COVID emergency.  There are also concerns related to the substance of zMOD. As a result, one lawsuit has been filed and a second soon will follow.  Thus far, the Alliance Law Group which is representing residents in these matters has done the first case largely on a pro bono basis.  However, with potential appeals, complexities of the second case, and opposition from the County, money will be needed for growing legal costs and fees.  Residents from around the county have recently launched a funding effort.  

If you would like more information,you can be in touch with:

Adrienne Whyte at ReclaimFairfaxCounty@gmail.com

or

To contribute you can mail a check to:

Reclaim Fairfax County

c/o Adrienne Whyte

6704 West Falls Way

Falls Church, VA 22046 

We are grateful to all who participated in the zMOD process. 

Sincerely,

Debbie Smith - Chair

Carol Turner – Vice Chair

Clyde Miller – Secretary

Michael Melanson – Fairfax Federation Representative

March 2021

Link to ZMOD Slide Presentation used during MDC Membership Meeting March 4th, 2021

zMOD Issues & Responses (wordpress.com)

These slides review several of the controversial proposed zoning changes being made by the county, the planning commission's recommendations on several of the proposals, and concerns expressed by homeowners and residents about the proposed changes.

February 2021

Our next MDC virtual meeting will be Wednesday, March 3rd at 7pm.  A meeting link and dial-in numbers will be forwarded in a separate email.  All members of your neighborhoods are welcome to participate.

The main item on the agenda will be a review of the County’s project to update/modernize the zoning ordinance – ZMOD.  We wrote to you previously about some of the more substantive proposals in the county’s ZMOD draft that have the potential to seriously impact single family neighborhoods. Since then, there was a 5.5 hour Planning Commission ZMOD public hearing in which we participated.  We thank all of you who wrote and spoke as well.  Due to the volume of speakers and questions and concerns presented, the Planning Commission deferred a decision on ZMOD until Feb 24th.  The Board of Supervisors is currently scheduled to hold its ZMOD public hearing on Tuesday, March 9th.  We hope you and your communities will consider submitting comments after our meeting.

Also related to ZMOD, county residents concerned about several ZMOD proposed zoning changes have created a survey which they asked us to share. Feel free to circulate the survey.  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FFXZMOD

We will also have a brief update on the expansion of Justice H.S. and a plan to construct a school parking lot in nearby Justice Park which is under discussion between Fairfax County Public Schools and the Fairfax County Park Authority.

Looking forward to a good meeting on March 3rd.

Sincerely,

Debbie Smith

Carol Turner

Clyde Miller

Michael Melanson  

January 28, 2021

Mason District Council Board Testimony to Planning Commission  at Public Hearing re: ZMOD

Dear Commissioner Murphy and Planning Commissioners:

Quality of life in our residential neighborhoods is key to Fairfax County’s economic success. If Fairfax County hopes to attract and retain the skilled workforce that is essential to its economic success, the county must protect and preserve established, safe, and livable residential neighborhoods. The appeal of our neighborhoods will determine whether current homeowners remain and whether new families choose to live here.

One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to protect residential communities from incompatible development. Alarmingly, ZMOD proposes to dissolve essential community protections at the same time dashing the means by which citizens are empowered to protect their neighborhoods. The Board of MDC is concerned that ZMOD's changes to ordinance regulations will degrade the quality of home life for residents to the point of impeding economic success as our current and future workforce looks for family-friendly neighborhoods elsewhere.

ZMOD's expansive proposals for new home businesses promise to commercialize our neighborhoods with activities that have no place in residential communities, including unlimited retail sales outlets that would allow residents to sell anything legal to sell, and small-scale production facilities allowed to manufacture anything legal to make. Retail sales and sales of goods manufactured would be limited to the Internet, but customers would be allowed on site to shop, and suppliers, sales people, and aficionados of the craft would be allowed on site as well.

Health and exercise facilities would be allowed any activity arguably related to that topic. All these new uses would be allowed by-right with administrative permits. There would be no limits on hours of operation and no limit on the equipment used on-site. While air compressors and pneumatic tools throbbing through the evening may be acceptable to the county, we are certain that they would not be acceptable to the affected neighbors.

And the county would have no authority to inspect any home business. If a neighbor lodged a complaint with Department of Code Compliance about an activity of concern at the business next door, DCC would have no right to inspect the property. The current ordinance gives the county the right to inspect every home business, either by ordinance language or by provisions in special permits. ZMOD unbelievably would relinquish this authority, presumably with the notion that the county should have no role whatsoever in assuring that home businesses comply with regulations. And that's unacceptable!

ZMOD's proposals for home businesses are simply out of bounds and should not be accepted.

ZMOD proposes expansive new floor area in enclosed freestanding structures, perhaps to house the new home businesses. Today these structures are limited to one in number not to exceed 200 sq ft in area. However, ZMOD proposes to allow any number of enclosed structures with a total floor area up to 50% of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit. In the yard of a modest 2000 sq ft home, 1000 sq ft of accessory buildings would be allowed. Included could be structures up to 12 ft tall within 5 ft of the property line - potential workshops for home businesses just five feet away from the neighbor's yard. In an April 23, 2019 public briefing, staff illogically justified allowing 12 ft structures within 5 ft of neighbors based on their analysis of building location errors and DCC complaints that showed such structures to be a frequent source of resident complaints. The reasoning was that the new 12-ft/5-ft rule would make the structures legal and complaints would vanish. Logically, of course, the data show that the structures are annoying to neighbors and the 12-ft/5-ft rule should not be adopted. Enclosed freestanding accessory structures should be limited to one building not to exceed 200 sq ft with additional buildings and floor area available by special permit.

The accessory living unit proposal is simply careless. One can understand an interest in increased flexibility in ALU regulations as a means for increasing the housing supply. But it is not helpful to promote them as affordable housing when they would not be designated as such and much of the evidence nationwide is that ALU's more frequently are offered at market-rates. In addition, it is not helpful to promote them as a principal untapped opportunity for new housing when all evidence tells us that the demand for them is light. And it is not helpful to propose to strip ALU regulations away and then wait to see what happens hoping that what happens doesn't happen next door to your home. When Chairman McKay was asked to justify the pressure on changing ALU regulations, he is quoted as saying it would be a way to legalize the existing un-permitted accessory dwelling units in the county today. That answer, like the justification for the 12-ft/5-ft rule, is no justification for changing the zoning ordinance.

Changes to ALU regulations should be thought through. Unintended consequences should be identified and mitigated. Until that happens, ALU regulations should not be changed.

Among email conversations with other residents, the principal question is WHY? Why are residents being dragged thru this blizzard of draconian proposals to upset the zoning ordinance in the midst of the pain and dislocations of the Covid pandemic? Is it to promote the economic success of the county? In all of the documents we have read and briefings attended, we have encountered not a single word that associated a ZMOD proposal with economic success. None.

Nothing has been offered to indicate that ZMOD regulations changes would contribute to anything except change itself. Supervisors have allowed ZMOD to become a political exercise to demonstrate their willingness to rollback regulations and push residents out of the land use management process. At the same time, they are distracting the community's attention and sapping its strength under the worst possible circumstances.

Legal opinion has determined that rewriting the county’s zoning ordinance far exceeds the boundaries the Governor has established regarding business that may be conducted by public bodies meeting electronically during the pandemic emergency. At the same time, informed residents clearly are opposed to ZMOD’s proposed regulation changes. The MDC Board believes now would be the right time to table the changes, take time to think them through, and defer next steps until such time as the pandemic emergency is behind us and the normal ordinance amendment process with staff reports and public hearings is reestablished.

Sincerely,

Debbie Smith – Chair

Carol Turner – Vice Chair

Clyde Miller – Secretary

Michael Melanson – Fairfax Federation Representative

January 19, 2021

Dear MDC Members,

We hope you and your associations will consider weighing in on several significant zoning changes being proposed by Fairfax County as part of the Zoning Ordinance Modernization Project (zMOD).  Some primary concerns include 1) relaxing regulations for interior accessory apartments (ALUs) which could allow apartments in any single family detached home and 2) relaxing regulations to allow more Home Based Businesses (HBB) with increased customer activity in all types of dwellings. The county is also proposing to eliminate the public hearing process which has historically accompanied applications for each of these uses and approve them instead, through a simple administrative permit without notifying or seeking input from neighbors. These proposed changes have sparked concern about impacts on the character of single-family detached communities and increased commercialization in all residential neighborhoods. 

Use this link https://www.act4fairfax.net/communityresponses to see sample letters and resolutions from around the county which you or your associations can support and endorse or use to draft separate letters and resolutions. In particular, is the remarkably, comprehensive commentary about zMOD changes by MDC Secretary, Clyde Miller on behalf of his citizens association Holmes Run Valley.  

Please write. Every letter is important. It doesn’t have to be long.

The Planning Commission will hold a Virtual Public Hearing about the proposed zoning changes on Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 7:30 p.m.

To speak at the Planning Commission Virtual Hearing or to submit video testimony, please sign up here:  https://wwwfairfaxcounty.gov/planningcommission/speaker  and also see here: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planningcommission/ways-to-provide-public-hearing-testimony

You can also write to all members of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission with your thoughts and concerns at: clerktothebos@fairfaxcounty.gov  and plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov  and reference “zMOD” in the subject line.  Please sign your name and include your address in the correspondence. 

Sincerely,

Mason District Council of Community Associations Board

Debbie Smith - Chair

Carol Turner – Vice Chair

Clyde Miller – Secretary

Michael Melanson – Fairfax Federation Representative

June 8, 2020  

IMPORTANT -  PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES BY THE COUNTY re: ACCESSORY DWELLINGS

WATCH  - Concerned Planning Commissioners Hear County's Prpopsed Changes for Accessory Dwellings and Home Businesses on May 7th:  http://video.fairfaxcounty.gov/player/clip/1708?view_id=10 

GOOD RESOURCE  - Paper on the county's proposed changes to weaken restrictions on Accessory Dwelling Units and Home Businesses prepared by MDC Board member Clyde Miller, President of Homes Run Valley Citizens Association: https://holmesrun.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/20200420_zmod_adu_hhb_revc.pdf.

October 15, 2020

Concerns About ZMOD

Since we last posted here in the spring (see below) about concerns with proposed zoning changes being included in the County’s zoning ordinance modernization project, zMOD, the County has completed a consolidated zoning ordinance draft document.

Across the County, concern is growing – especially over proposed zoning changes related to single family neighborhoods– mainly changes to accessory apartments within single family detached homes and changes easing limitations on home based businesses operating in any type dwelling.

A survey on these two issues was also completed by the County.  Results showed strong opposition to changes loosening limitations and restrictions like eliminating public notice/hearings and allowing increased business activity in homes.  See County Survey Results.

Other District Council’s and associations in the County are now producing their own summaries about these issues.  We want to share this excellent summary from Sully District Council in the western portion of Fairfax County:

http://www.sullydistrict.org/references/20201005_JSDLU&TCLettertoHOAsReMajorImpacts.pdf

You, your association and neighbors are urged to write to county representatives to express your opinion on these zoning proposals which have the potential to have serious impacts on neighborhoods. County officials need to know where you stand.

Contact Information:

Please reference “zMOD” in your email subject line.

Board of Supervisors  - clerktothebos@fairfaxcounty.gov

Planning Commission – plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov

Dept of Planning and Development -  dpdzmodcomments@fairfaxcounty.gov

June 8, 2020

Dear Neighbors, 

While undertaking a project to modernize and better organize the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance (zMOD), county staff has proposed sweeping and controversial amendments to regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units (ADUs).  The MDC Board believes that the proposed changes are detrimental to the welfare of single-family home communities and should not be adopted.

What’s an ADU? An ADU is a dwelling unit limited to two bedrooms and two occupants, complete with a full kitchen, that may be constructed as an accessory to any single-family detached home. Currently, on lots less than 2 acres, the ADU must be inside the house, (an interior ADU). On lots larger than 2 acres, the ADU may be interior or standalone (an exterior ADU). There can be only one ADU on a property and the homeowner is required to live on the property. The interior ADU effectively turns the single-family home into a duplex. The standalone ADU adds a second home to the property.

Current ADU Regulations. ADUs were introduced into the zoning ordinance some time ago as a housing option for older and/or disabled residents, in particular, family members of the property owner who are either disabled or at least 55 years of age in general need of monitoring and support. Today, the approval of both interior and exterior ADUs requires a special permit, a process that assures transparency and some measure of compatibility of the ADUwith the community. Neighbors receive notice in the mail that an ADU application has been filed, and sign boards are posted on the property with the same message. A public hearing is held before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to provide neighbors an opportunity to state and resolve their concerns, and the BZA is required to make a determination that the ADU would be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. The BZA is an independent body appointed by the Circuit Court.

Proposed Amendments. The zMOD program is proposing to:

Delete the requirement that one or both occupants of the ADU must be either disabled or at least 55 years of age.

Current regulations stipulate that occupants of a single-family detached home may include no more than 4 people unrelated by blood or marriage.  The proposed regulations would allow conversion of single-family homes with 4 unrelated people and one kitchen into duplexes with 6 unrelated people and 2 kitchens.

Proposed changes also include eliminating the required special permit and the entire public hearing process for a routine administrative permit instead.

Concerns. One concern is the likelihood that the amendment would encourage a proliferation of boarding houses - a blight that the county has not been able to manage.

A second concern is the option that the amendments would provide developers to tear down homes in single-family neighborhoods and build duplexes in their place.

Perhaps a greater concern is the amendment’s intention to eliminate the special permit requirement for interior ADUs. This change would eliminate all of the protection against incompatible development that the special permit process provides communities.  There would be no notification to neighbors of the intention to install an interior ADU, no BZA hearing for resolving community concerns, and no independent determination by the BZA that an interior ADU would not damage the character of the neighborhood.  Communities would be left defenseless.

And finally, allowing single-family dwellings to be converted into multi-family dwellings will create an increase in population in areas not planned for such density. Without adequate planning and funding for essential infrastructure to support potential new residents there will be severe impacts on parking, traffic, schools, parks, hospitals, government services and utilities.

Conclusion:  The MDC Board supports the current ADU regulations that are focused on providing housing for older and/or disabled residents and are approved by special permits.  The Board does not support the proposal to drop the age/disability requirement and opposes in the strongest possible terms the proposal to drop the special permit requirement 

Engage:  Even though the County’s online surveys have closed, the County is still accepting public comment.  Their short videos on accessory dwellings and home based businesses can be viewed here: zMOD website.  You can send your questions and submit feedback on all aspects of zMOD, including on accessory dwelling units and home-based businesses, to the County Planning and Zoning Department, the Board of  Supervisors and the Planning Commission at: DPZZMODComments@fairfaxcounty.gov; clerktothebos@fairfaxcounty.gov; plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov.

Sincerely, 

The Board of Mason District Council of Community Associations

Debbie Smith – Chair

Carol Turner-  Vice Chair

Clyde Miller – Secretary

Debbie Fraser – Treasurer

Jennifer Abdelmalek – Fairfax Federation Representative

May 7th, 2020 

WATCH  - Concerned Planning Commissioners Hear County's Prpopsed Changes for Accessory Dwellings and Home Businesses  http://video.fairfaxcounty.gov/player/clip/1708?view_id=10 

GOOD RESOURCE  - Paper on the county's proposed changes to weaken restrictions on Accessory Dwelling Units and Home Businesses prepared by MDC Board member Clyde Miller, President of Homes Run Valley Citizens Association: https://holmesrun.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/20200420_zmod_adu_hhb_revc.pdf.

April 22, 2020

IMPORTANT - ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS COUNTY PROPOSED CHANGES

Dear MDC Members, 

While undertaking a project to modernize and better organize the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance (zMOD), county staff has proposed sweeping and controversial amendments to regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) with the stated objective of increasing the supply of affordable housing. The MDC Board believes that the proposed changes are detrimental to the welfare of single-family home communities and should not be adopted.

What’s an ADU? An ADU is a dwelling unit limited to two bedrooms and two occupants, complete with a full kitchen, that may be constructed as an accessory to any single-family detached home. Currently, on lots less than 2 acres, the ADU must be inside the house, (an interior ADU). On lots larger than 2 acres, the ADU may be interior or standalone (an exterior ADU). There can be only one ADU on a property and the homeowner is required to live on the property. The interior ADU effectively turns the single-family home into a duplex. The standalone ADU adds a second home to the property.

Current ADU Regulations. ADUs were introduced into the zoning ordinance some time ago as a housing option for older and/or disabled residents, in particular, family members of the property owner who are either disabled or at least 55 years of age in general need of monitoring and support. Today, the approval of both interior and exterior ADUs requires a special permit, a process that assures transparency and some measure of compatibility of the ADU with the community. Neighbors receive notice in the mail that an ADU application has been filed, and sign boards are posted on the property with the same message. A public hearing is held before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to provide neighbors an opportunity to state and resolve their concerns, and the BZA is required to make a determination that the ADU would be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. The BZA is an independent body appointed by the Circuit Court.

Proposed Amendments. The zMOD program is proposing to:

Change the intent and purpose of ADUs from housing for the elderly and disabled to a mechanism ostensibly for providing affordable housing. In fact, the proposal does nothing to ensure affordability, and simply deletes the requirement that one or both occupants of the ADU must be either disabled or at least 55 years of age.

Current regulations stipulate that occupants of a single-family detached home may include no more than 4 people unrelated by blood or marriage.  The proposed regulations would allow conversion of single-family homes with 4 unrelated people and one kitchen into duplexes with 6 unrelated people and 2 kitchens.

Proposed changes also include eliminating the required special permit and the entire public hearing process for a routine administrative permit instead.

Concerns. One concern is the likelihood that the amendment would encourage a proliferation of boarding houses - a blight that the county has not been able to manage.

A second concern is the option that the amendments would provide developers to tear down homes in single-family neighborhoods and build duplexes in their place.

Perhaps a greater concern is the amendment’s intention to eliminate the special permit requirement for interior ADUs. This change would eliminate all of the protection against incompatible development that the special permit process provides communities.  There would be no notification to neighbors of the intention to install an interior ADU, no BZA hearing for resolving community concerns, and no independent determination by the BZA that an interior ADU would not damage the character of the neighborhood.  Communities would be left defenseless.

And finally, allowing single-family dwellings to be converted into multi-family dwellings will create an increase in population in areas not planned for such density. Without adequate planning and funding for essential infrastructure to support potential new residents there will be severe impacts on parking, traffic, schools, parks, hospitals, government services and utilities.

Conclusion:  The MDC Board supports the current ADU regulations that are focused on providing housing for older and/or disabled residents and are approved by special permits.  The Board does not support the proposal to drop the age/disability requirement and opposes in the strongest possible terms the proposal to drop the special permit requirement.

Engage:  You can find the zMOD accessory dwelling unit video and the survey at https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/zmod.  The video is under the heading VIDEOS and the survey under SURVEYS.  Please encourage your membership to engage and respond to the survey.

Thank you.

The Board of Mason District Council of Community Associations

Debbie Smith – Chair

Carol Turner-  Vice Chair

Clyde Miller – Secretary

Debbie Fraser – Treasurer

Jennifer Abdelmalek – Fairfax Federation Representative

Feb. 28, 2020

Proposed Bike Lanes, Road Restriping/ Narrowing in Mason

COMMUNITY MTG Mar. 3, 6:30pm - Mason Govt Cntr, 6507 Columbia Pike

Streets on the list for bike lanes include portions of: Carlin Springs, Scoville Street, Lacy Boulevard, Lafayette Village Drive, Maple Place, Markham Street, S. George Mason Drive. Provide Feedback by March 17, 2020 (see links in article lhere:  https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/transportation/node/723

January 13, 2020

Action is needed on the following.

Several bills generating great local concern have recently been filed in the Virginia House.  All of the bills would weaken local land use authority.

Two of the bills (HB152 and HB151) are proposed by Delegate Ibraheem Samirah representing the 86th district, which includes parts of Fairfax and Loudoun counties in the Chantilly, Herndon, and Sterling areas.

The third bill is proposed by Delegate John McGuire III representing the 56th District which includes parts of Spotsylvania, Goochland, Louisa and Henrico counties

1)  HB152 would force local governments to upzone to permit duplexes, townhouses, cottages, and any similar structure on land currently zoned for single-family housing, even if current local zoning regulations do not allow this.

2)  HB151 would force local governments to allow the development and use of one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) per single-family dwelling even if local zoning regulations currently restrict or disallow them.  “Accessory dwelling unit" or "ADU" means an independent dwelling unit on a single-family dwelling (SFD) lot with its own living, bathroom, and kitchen space. ADUs may be within or attached to SFDs or in detached structures on lots containing SFDs.  ADUs may include, but are not limited to, basements, attics, flats, guest houses, cottages, and converted structures such as garages and sheds.

3)  HB1474 proposes to eliminate local government limits on short-term rentals (i.e., Airbnb, HomeAway, VRBO and similar) including limits on

a. the total number of nights permitted annually for short-term rentals. 

b. the number of short-term rental properties owned by any one person or entity.

As a reminder, Fairfax County recently completed a lengthy process with the community to develop regulations on short-term rentals and is still in the review period of those regulations.

The MDC board recognizes the importance of local authority over land use and zoning and strongly opposes encroachment on this authority.

One size fits all, state-wide land use policies are problematic for many reasons.

Each local jurisdiction has unique and particular characteristics and situations, and decisions on land use should remain in their control.

Local governments know best the density, traffic, environmental, parking, transportation infrastructure, school and quality of life concerns of their communities. Let’s leave this to them and the community members who make their homes there.

You and your associations are encouraged to write your state delegates and senators and sponsors of these bills with your thoughts and concerns.

Sponsors of the above bills:

HB151 and HB152  DelISamirah@house.virginia.gov;

HB1474   DelJMcGuire@house.virginia.gov;

Virginia State Senators from Fairfax County

Adam Ebbin  30th

Barbara Favola 31st

Janet Howell 32nd

Jennifer Boysko 33rd

J.C. “Chap” Petersen 34th

Richard Saslaw 35th

Scott Surovell 36th

David Marsden 37th

George Barker 39th

district30@senate.virginia.gov;

district31@senate.virginia.gov;

district32@senate.virginia.gov;

district33@senate.virginia.gov;

district34@senate.virginia.gov;

district35@senate.virginia.gov;

district36@senate.virginia.gov;

district37@senate.virginia.gov;

district39@senate.virginia.gov;

Virginia State Delegates from Fairfax County:

DelKMurphy@house.virginia.gov ;

DelMKeam@house.virginia.gov;  

DelKPlum@house.virginia.gov;  

DelDBulova@house.virginia.gov; 

DelKKory@house.virginia.gov;   

DelVwatts@house.virginia.gov;  

DelDHelmer@house.virginia.gov ;

DelEFiller-Corn@house.virginia.gov;  

DelKTran@house.virginia.gov;  

DelMSickles@house.virginia.gov;

DelPKrizek@house.virginia.gov;  

DelMLevine@house.virginia.gov;  

DelRSullivan@house.virginia.gov;  

DelALopez@house.virginia.gov;  

DelMSimon@house.virginia.gov;  

DelKDelaney@house.virginia.gov;

DelISamirah@house.virginia.gov;

Sincerely,

Debbie Smith – Chair

Carol Turner – Vice Chair

Clyde Miller – Secretary

Debbie Fraser – Treasurer

Jennifer Abdelmalek – Fairfax Federation Representative