Planning Fee recommends one-to-one alternative of inexpensive housing

The Fairfax County Planning Fee on Feb. 15 handed a movement to suggest the Board of Supervisors strengthen the county’s coverage on preserving inexpensive housing.  

As developed by county workers, a brand new goal could be added “to offer inexpensive multifamily rental housing incentives for preservation, together with density.”

The objective is “no internet lack of inexpensive housing” – when multifamily properties are redeveloped – by means of a one-for-one alternative. 

The advice additionally requires an evaluation of the affordability of properties being redeveloped. New tips for multifamily inexpensive housing preservation could be developed to incorporate potential incentives for builders, comparable to further density and constructing top.

The rules would additionally cowl relocation plans for tenants whereas a property is being redeveloped. 

The coverage addresses multifamily rental housing inexpensive to households incomes 60 p.c of the world median earnings or under

This might be achieved by retaining each “market inexpensive” and “dedicated inexpensive” housing, Bree Fuller of the Division of Housing and Neighborhood Improvement, advised the Planning Fee.

Market inexpensive items are naturally occurring, as a result of location and situation of the property. Many of those properties are older and face the specter of redevelopment. Dedicated inexpensive properties have earnings restrictions that would expire.

Associated story: Proposed coverage would protect extra inexpensive housing

The coverage requires a wide range of instruments for preserving inexpensive housing, together with monetary instruments, land use insurance policies, legislative priorities, and different measures.

The inexpensive housing coverage would come into play when an house proprietor applies for a plan modification or rezoning to redevelop a property.

In that case, the county may present incentives to the developer, comparable to permitting larger density or a better constructing than would usually be allowed.

Employees recognized 8,300 inexpensive items in 44 privately owned properties throughout the county.

An evaluation of a one-size-fits-all coverage to permit to make sure the preservation of inexpensive items in properties going through redevelopment wouldn’t present constant outcomes, Fuller stated.

As a substitute, workers proposed a versatile method.

Properties with a larger proportion of inexpensive items want larger density and extra monetary incentives than different properties, she stated. Dimension and placement of properties would additionally should be thought-about.

Builders would nonetheless be required to offer ADUs (inexpensive dwelling items) and WDUs (workforce dwelling items). They’d depend towards the alternative items.

Draft administrative tips are anticipated to be ready earlier than the Board of Supervisors’ listening to on the inexpensive housing coverage, which is scheduled for March 21. The rules will cowl the precise calculation of affordability, notably for market affordability.

Throughout the Planning Fee listening to, Brian Winterhalter, a business actual property legal professional, stated the one-to-one alternative normal ought to be a objective quite than a hard-and-fast mandate.

If it’s a mandate, he prompt property homeowners may forgo redevelopment and as an alternative improve a property, which may result in hire will increase.

“We acknowledge one-for-one won’t be achievable in each state of affairs,” Fuller clarified. “We are going to work with candidates to attain the objective.”

In line with the county’s inexpensive housing dashboard, greater than a 3rd (34 p.c) of the county’s market inexpensive rental items are within the Mount Vernon District. Nineteen p.c are in Mason, 17 p.c are in Franconia, and 13 p.c are in Windfall.

Of the county’s 15,483 dedicated inexpensive items, 21 p.c are in Mason District, 17 p.c are in Hunter Mill, 16 p.c are in Windfall, and 15 p.c are in Franconia.