RE: Support for DC Council bill: B26-0801 – Chevy Chase Civic Site Surplus Declaration and Disposition Approval Act of 2026
Steps to testifying:
Sign up to testify – virtually or in person. Hearing dates:
Dec. 3, 11 a.m., Facilities Committee, Councilmember Janeese Lewis George, chair. Sign up deadline: Dec. 1, 5 p.m. Written testimony due Dec. 17.
Nov. 12, 10 a.m., Human Services Committee, Councilmember Matt Frumin, chair. Sign up deadline: Nov. 9, 10 a.m. Written testimony due Nov. 17.
Submit written comments: Submit your written testimony in advance of the hearing date. If you already sent a letter, you can consider it done. You can also submit testimony on the Council sign up page. .
Login with the link sent or arrive in person at 1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW.
Oct. 29, 2026 Fairfax County Planning Commission 12000 Government Center Pkwy Fairfax, VA 22035
Good evening, Fairfax County Planning Commissioners. My name is Becca Dedert, and I serve as the Virginia Housing Advocacy Specialist with the Coalition for Smarter Growth. CSG advocates for walkable, transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable way for our region to grow. I am speaking today in support of the ALU zoning ordinance amendment, with two key recommendations.
I want to begin by thanking all of you for your thoughtful consideration of this update, as well as staff members Casey Judge and Carmen Bishop for their extensive research and community outreach.
Fairfax County’s Housing Needs and the Benefits of ALUs
First, I would like to ground ourselves in the county’s 2026 Housing Needs Assessment. According to the report, Fairfax will need at least 40,000 and up to 95,000 new homes by 2035 to keep pace with growth and address our severe housing shortage.
However, Fairfax County’s existing ALU regulations are so restrictive that in the five years since these rules took effect, only 158 have been built countywide, and over half of all applications have been denied.
It will take every tool in the policy toolbox to meet our housing needs. This update is an opportunity for ALUs to be a real part of the solution
ALUs are an incredibly beneficial housing option. They offer flexibility for different stages of life, encouraging intergenerational living and helping meet specialized housing needs. Because of their smaller footprint, ALUs are one of the most low-cost forms of housing. Letting homeowners safely and easily build ALUs on their property is one of the most organic and cost effective ways we can address our housing needs.
Our Recommendations
We strongly endorse staff’s Option 1 recommendations to eliminate ongoing owner-occupancy mandates, remove extra parking space requirements and recurring permit renewals, increase the allowable sizes of ALUs, and streamline approvals into standard building permits. These are regulations that align with best practices, and we commend staff for including them in this update.
However, to turn ALUs into a real, functional housing strategy, we must address two major remaining barriers. First, our most significant concerns center around minimum lot size restrictions for detached ALUs.
The staff report proposes reducing the by-right minimum lot size for detached ALUs to 36,000 square feet. While an improvement from the previous 2 acre requirement, 36,000 square feet is still nearly a full acre, almost an entire football field. This restriction excludes over 86% of detached, single-family lots, locking out almost every homeowner in our most walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods.
The highlighted area is 36,000 sq. ft., the proposed minimum lot size needed to build a standalone ALUs
Minimum Lot Sizes for Detached ALUs
Minimum lot sizes for ALUs are a regional anomaly. None of our neighboring jurisdictions have this requirement, which poses a significant deterrent to homeowners. Public hearings introduce high application costs, months of delay, and severe uncertainty that discourages moderate-income homeowners and builders from even attempting to build detached units.
Additionally, minimum lot sizes were not a priority expressed by the public in the county’s community engagement survey. Over half of all respondents supported allowing detached ALUs without a public hearing, and for all of the lot size scenarios presented, more respondents supported administrative approvals than special hearings. This restriction does not reflect a clear community mandate.
Over half of respondents to Fairfax County’s community survey on ALUs support allowing freestanding ALUs without a public hearing
It is also important to recognize that standard-compliant detached ALUs remain strictly governed by standard zoning bulk rules, including:
Standard side, front, and rear setbacks,
Subordinancy to the primary home,
Maximum yard coverage limits, and
County tree canopy and stormwater ordinances.
Other freestanding accessory structures, such as garages or workshops, are permitted by right with the same setback and height requirements. The only difference is that ALUs provide housing.
This restriction incentivizes teardowns and additions over gentle infill development. Under our existing code, a homeowner or developer can demolish a modest home and build several thousand additional square feet completely by-right. These expansions consume massive yard footprints, eliminate tree canopy, and loom over adjacent yards. Yet, if that same homeowner wants to build a modest, subordinate 600-square-foot cottage, we force them through a public hearing. Removing lot size limits encourages homeowners to preserve their existing homes while adding smaller, low-impact units.
We strongly encourage the Planning Commission to meet standard practices for accessory home regulations and eliminate minimum lot size requirements entirely for detached ALUs.
Internal ALUs for Townhomes
Second, we urge the Planning Commission to allow internal ALUs for attached single-family homes, to maximize housing flexibility across all residential build types and encourage transit-oriented development. Allowing interior townhome ALUs by-right matches the policies of our neighboring jurisdictions as well as the state’s legislative standards, and will allow for additional density in the townhome communities adjacent to our Metro Stations. These homeowners should be permitted to maximize their underutilized attic or basement spaces to provide safe, self-contained, and lower-cost housing.
Conclusion
We encourage the Planning Commission to adopt staff’s core recommendations on parking, owner-occupancy, occupancy limits, size increases, and recurring permit renewals, but to take the final necessary steps to remove all minimum lot size requirements for detached ALUs and to allow internal ALUs in attached single-family homes by right. Lifting these restrictions will allow us to have a functional ALU policy that enables gentle infill and transit-oriented development, while addressing our housing goals. Let’s give Fairfax County families the housing options they need.
Take action to support an important bill that will make it easier to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs) like backyard cottages and accessory apartments in Montgomery County.
The Honorable Robert White, Chair, Committee on Housing, Council of the District of Columbia John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004, Email: housing@dccouncil.us
RE: Oppose IZ provisions in B26-0819 – Ownership and Wealth-building for our Neighbors (OWN) Omnibus Amendment Act of 2026 — regarding Inclusionary Zoning for-sale homes
Dear Chair White:
Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. CSG advocates for walkable, bikeable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all.
We wish to express our opposition to the provision in B26-819, to provide a payment of the market rate appreciation to deed-restricted Inclusionary Zoning for-sale homes. This section of the bill amends Sec. 3. Section 103 of the Inclusionary Zoning Implementation Amendment Act of 2006, 75 effective March 14, 2007 (D.C. Law 16-275; D.C. Official Code § 6-1041.03).
We regret to offer this testimony in opposition to this section of the bill, but we do not believe that this proposal — however well intentioned — is the best way to support affordable homeownership for DC residents. The implications for this payment of market appreciation for the non-covenanted price, presumably by the District government, has many downsides to our efforts to broaden affordable homeownership for DC residents, and more generally, keep DC residents stably housed.
This payment approach will divert limited housing funding. The change would undercut the premise of deed-restricted homes, where a family is able to purchase an IZ home at a below-market price, who would otherwise remain renters. The proposed approach would also be difficult to design and manage.
DC’s budget and affordable housing crisis calls for different priorities. The potentially high, though unpredictable cost of committing the District to paying a market appreciation price for an IZ unit is an inefficient use of extremely limited resources to support affordable homeownership and address DC’s affordable housing crisis in general. This proposal could divert limited funds from future homeownership assistance programs, and from the many desperately needed interventions to keep struggling residents in their homes and preserve ailing affordable housing buildings that are on the brink of foreclosure. Loss of these buildings would mean displacement of current residents, the loss of the covenants, and all the spent DC subsidy that created those affordable buildings. Topping off market appreciation for an IZ unit beyond the shared equity resale formula is not the best use of DC’s stressed budget.
District payments of market appreciation for shared equity affordable homes carry other risks. This change carries with it other risks to the District and DHCD. Owners of rental properties developed in compliance with IZ could ask why they are not compensated for their reduced rental income from IZ units. Limited equity cooperatives have similar approaches to limited shared equity for the owner/seller while retaining the affordable unit price for the next buyer. Owners in these kinds of shared equity cooperatives might also ask why they too aren’t being subsidized to be paid the market price. One expert has raised the potential of spurring of speculation from unscrupulous lenders. This major shift opens up many questions as to how this program would work.
While some have raised concerns about the resale formula for the IZ program’s shared equity approach, this proposal does not address this. We can recommend some experts who could provide insight based on national level experience and data, as well as local knowledge, if it would be useful to assess the share equity resale formula used by the DC IZ program.
To our knowledge, no other IZ program has such a policy in place in the country. We think that’s due to the many concerns we and others have raised.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Cort, DC and Prince George’s Policy Director
The Coalition for Smarter Growth (CSG), advocates for walkable, bikeable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the Washington, DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all. We also support and work closely with RISE Prince George’s, a group of county residents and allies advocating for policies and practices that build shared, sustainable prosperity in Prince George’s County by creating safe, walkable, inclusive and transit-oriented communities.
On behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, we wish to express our support for this project and detailed site plan. This proposal will provide 282 one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments, along with some office space in a single apartment building. Nearly all of these homes will be affordable at 60% of the Median Family Income. The project will convert an old car sales and rental car lot. The site is only a five minute walk away from the soon to be operational Glenridge Purple Line station. In fact, the site is only a 20 minute walk, or 10 minute bike ride from the New Carrollton Metro and Amtrak station.
We are not only excited to see these new affordable homes provided close to transit, but also close to a grocery store, schools and other stores. While the two state highways that define this area – MD 450 – Annapolis Road, and MD 410 – Veterans Parkway, are not at all pleasant places to walk along, or bicycle on, the proposed building design helps to start to change this. The building is designed to face and engage the street, giving greater definition to the edge of the street. This visually indicates to drivers on Annapolis Road that this is a more urban place – not just a place for fast moving cars and trucks, but also for people walking and biking.
Conclusion
We again want to express our support for DSP 2026-21, which will bring 282 affordable apartments to this transit-accessible location. This is another exciting advance for transit-oriented housing and the Purple Line. We look forward to continuing the effort to make Annapolis Road and Veterans Parkway multimodal streets where walking to the Purple Line station, bus stops, the grocery store, or school feels safe and comfortable.
Learn from Montgomery County, Maryland Planning staff and local advocates about the basics of navigating the master plan process, advocacy tips, and why your engagement makes a big difference!
Detached Mother-in-law suite, courtesy of the Sightline Housing Solutions Photo Library, CC BY 2.0 (cropped)
Time is running out – our window is closing to make Accessory Living Units a real housing solution for Fairfax County. While the most recent staff recommendations include some big wins, the county is still unwilling to let go of minimum lot sizes for standalone ALUs.
To be clear, this is not a standard policy for accessory homes. None of our neighboring jurisdictions require minimum lot sizes, but Fairfax County wants anyone with less than 36,000 square feet (that’s almost an acre!) to go through a burdensome special permit process to access this housing option. Join us in urging the county to remove the minimum lot size requirement ahead of the upcoming hearings!
How can I take action?
If you haven’t yet, NOW is the time to send a letter to the county. Your voice is extremely important!
Want to make an even bigger impact? We cannot over-emphasize the importance of testimonials. Luckily, Fairfax County makes it very easy to offer testimony. We’ll be there in-person, but you can also testify by calling in or recording a video.
Please email becca@smartergrowth.net if you have questions – we are more than happy to help you with signing up, drafting comments, or finding the right format for you.
So – what’s in the Staff Report?
First, the good news. County staff heard your voices and supported key recommendations we pushed for in our initial campaign, including:
Removing mandated parking requirements (this is big!)
Dropping owner-occupancy requirements.
Allowing standard-compliant ALUs by-right, without the need for additional administrative permits.
Dropping permit renewal requirements.
Permitting at least three occupants per unit, with the potential to go up to four.
The proposed minimum lot size requirement excludes 86% of homeowners from building backyard cottages, and is particularly challenging for homeowners with smaller, transit-adjacent lots. This creates a major tripwire that will undermine the intention of this policy to create access to a flexible, cost-effective housing option. Help us finish the campaign strong by sending a message to the county – we want to see real housing reforms!
Known as granny flats, in-law suites, or backyard cottages, accessory dwellings are among the most versatile and cost-effective housing options available.
Flexibility for Every Stage of Life: ALUs allow older adults to age in place with dignity, offer young adults a place to live while saving money for college or their first home, and make intergenerational living accessible.
Affordable by Design: Because of their smaller footprint, ALUs are naturally lower cost to construct and rent, expanding housing choices without requiring massive infrastructure changes.
Meeting Our Housing Goals: Fairfax County needs tens of thousands of new homes over the next decade to meet our housing needs. Letting homeowners safely build ALUs on their own property is one of the easiest ways to increase our housing supply.
We have the ability to make ALUs a powerful tool in the effort to expand access to housing for more Fairfax residents. We hope you will express your thoughts to the county in support of relaxing the current ALU regulations and making this an actionable housing strategy.
We are writing in strong support of Bill 41-26 to expand access to accessory dwelling units (ADUs). This bill will reduce barriers for those who want to provide ADUs for rent, and increase affordable access to these homes for renters.
