Category: Zoning

CSG Testimony in support of Accessory Living Units in Fairfax County

Posted on by Becca Dedert

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.

Thank you.

Becca Dedert
Virginia Housing Advocacy Specialist

Testimony: Support with amendments CB 074-2026, allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (Prince George’s)

Testimony: Support with amendments CB 074-2026, allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (Prince George’s)

Posted on by Cheryl Cort

September 28, 2026

Hon. Krystal Oriadha, Chair, Prince George’s County Council

Wayne K. Curry Administration Building, 1301 McCormick Drive, Largo, MD 20774

RE: Support with amendments CB 074-2026, allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 

Dear Chair Oriadha and members of the Council:

Please accept this testimony 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 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. 

CSG supports CB 74, to permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a matter of right on lots with single family detached homes. ADUs offer an innovative, smaller housing type that helps residents meet their housing needs. While this bill is required to conform to state law, ADUs have been supported as a helpful housing type in many Prince George’s policies and documents. We are excited to finally be getting to implementation. 

We urge the council to support this bill, without onerous restrictions that make it that much harder to build an accessory living unit. The high cost of building an ADU remains a challenge, even with the lowering of regulatory barriers. Adding costly and complicated requirements will have a major impact on the ability of a resident to build an ADU. 

ADUs offer many benefits

ADUs offer many benefits to individual families and to the community. ADUs help meet a variety of needs, and often help provide new types of housing close to in-demand locations like Metro stations and downtowns. Benefits include providing smaller, less costly housing in an existing neighborhood already served by existing infrastructure. These new, smaller homes help fulfill housing needs such as: caregiver housing for an aging homeowner or for an adult child with a disability. A separate living unit on the same lot with a single family home gives a family member independence while also simultaneously providing proximity. An ADU can also help a young family afford to have a larger home by allowing them to rent out the unit until they are ready to use the expanded living space for themselves. 

Avoid overregulating ADUs 

The bill provides a number of reasonable restrictions to ensure that an accessory unit is subordinate to the principal dwelling. However, we recommend the following amendments to avoid unnecessary regulations that discourage the creation of ADUs:

  1. Remove or modify owner occupancy requirement: The owner occupancy requirement discourages ADU construction by creating additional bureaucratic process and uncertainty about changing needs over time for the homeowner. A legal covenant also dampens sales of the property. If the owner occupancy requirement remains, we recommend using the State Department of Assessment and Taxation (SDAT) database to identify owner occupied properties rather than a covenant. 
  2. Avoid a new definition for lot occupancy: the bill lumps associated walkways, patios, or other impervious surfaces with the lot coverage limit of 900 square feet. We recommend not redefining lot coverage but instead regulate impervious areas through existing regulations for imperviousness. 

We advise against overregulating ADUs because they are already costly and challenging to build. Each restriction must be considered carefully so as not render the right to build moot by restrictions that make it effectively impossible. Across the country, as local jurisdictions have lowered restrictions on ADUs, we’ve seen them built. However, other jurisdictions continue to impose too many requirements which are holding back the potential for these smaller homes, and all the benefits that come with them. 

We urge the council to adopt the bill with our proposed amendments. Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely,

Cheryl Cort, DC and Prince George’s Policy Director

CSG in the News: Local advocates testify on Friendship Heights Sector Plan Update

Posted on by Carrie Kisicki

Jad Donohoe, the senior vice president of The Donohoe Companies; Carrie Kisicki, the Maryland Housing Advocacy Manager for the Coalition for Smarter Growth; and Natalie Avery, the executive director of the Friendship Heights Alliance were among those who voiced support for the plan at Monday’s public hearing.

Testimony: Amend CB 92-2026, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) requirements in Prince George’s County

Testimony: Amend CB 92-2026, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) requirements in Prince George’s County

Posted on by Cheryl Cort

September 14, 2026

Hon. Wala Blegay, Chair, PHED Committee, Prince George’s County Council

Wayne K. Curry Administration Building, 1301 McCormick Drive, Largo, MD 20774

RE: Amend CB 092-2026, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) requirements

Dear members of the Committee:

Please accept this testimony 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 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. 

We have several concerns about this bill which could create unnecessary barriers to creating an accessory dwelling unit on a single family detached house lot. 

  1. Owner occupancy – we oppose this requirement as an impediment to creating ADUs. However, if this requirement is implemented, we ask that the provisions for exceptions be broadened to allow more time for an absent owner to rent out the property. We recognize the bill has created a path for new construction, which is welcome. 
  2. Notice – we oppose the provision for an informational notice. The purpose of this is unclear. It creates a new, special notice provision that is an unnecessary burden for an owner who is building and ADU. This notice provision treats the action like a partial variance or special exception process – yet a new process would have to be invented. 
  3. Short term rental – we oppose special restrictions on short term rental for ADUs. We recommend that ADU rentals be governed by county law on short term rentals. Short term rentals should be governed by rental licensing provisions. 
  4. Woodland, Wildlife Conservation and Tree Canopy Coverage ordinances – we oppose this special provision for ADUs to be restricted from variances, waivers. We recommend that the ADU be subject to the same standards in these ordinances. 
  5. Imperviousness surface requirements – we ask that the Council ensure this provision be consistent with existing treatment of single family residential uses. We suggest that the provision for adding a small amount of imperviousness could be addressed by setting a threshold under which new construction can comply with existing permitted imperviousness. We also recognize that the Planning Department comments recommend deleting this provision, as lot coverage can be assessed through the building permit site plan. 

We urge the Committee to support the creation of ADUs, without adding costly and complicated requirements that will have a significant impact on the ability of a resident to build an ADU. 

ADUs offer many benefits to individual families and to the community. ADUs help meet a variety of needs, and often help provide new types of housing close to in-demand locations like Metro stations and downtowns.

ADUs benefit the environment by providing smaller, less costly housing in an existing neighborhood already served by existing infrastructure. This creates more affordable housing options, while better utilizing existing public investments. These smaller homes help fulfill housing needs such as caregiver housing for an aging homeowner or for an adult child with a disability. An ADU can also help a young family afford to have a larger home by allowing them to rent out the unit until they are ready to use the expanded living space for themselves. 

We urge the Committee to remove the burdensome requirements from this bill so we can encourage this flexible type of housing.  It’s hard enough to build an ADU, it might be impossible with costly, complicated restrictions. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely,

Cheryl Cort, DC and Prince George’s Policy Director

Action Alert: Support ADUs in Prince George’s

Action Alert: Support ADUs in Prince George’s

Posted on by Cheryl Cort

On September 3, 2026, the Prince George’s County Council will consider a bill (CB 74) to permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs). This bill is driven by a state law that requires local governments to ease restrictions on ADUs and allow them by right in single family zones. After years of talking about it, now something is finally happening! Send a letter of support to the County Council. Also take a short Council survey on the proposal. Tell them we want ADUs – without a lot of onerous restrictions. 

Send a letter

Why we love ADUs

The bill would allow this flexible housing type on a single-family lot, diversifying housing options that can better meet the needs of families and the community. Here are some of the benefits:

  • Allows smaller, less costly housing in an existing neighborhood with existing services;
  • Helps an aging couple add a dwelling so that their adult children can live on the same lot;
  • Enables a family to add a unit for an adult child with a disability, providing both proximity and independence, or provides a caregiver living space;
  • Helps a young family cover the costs of homeownership by renting out a backyard cottage or basement apartment.

What’s in the bill 

The current bill (CB 74-2026) at a County Council committee will legalize ADUs with reasonable rules — which follow the state law which requires local governments to allow ADUs. 

The bill would allow an ADU as a matter of right that:

  • Is on the same lot with a single-family detached house;
  • Is not greater than 75% of the size of, and is subordinate to the principal house;
  • Can be a separate structure (e.g. garage conversion) or an addition to, or inside the existing house (e.g. basement apartment);
  • No taller than 22 feet, or shorter than the principal house;
  • Does not add more than 900 square feet of lot coverage as an addition to the principal house.

These are basic rules that still allow a one or two story accessory independent living unit that is smaller than the principal single-family detached house. This works!

Beware of excessive restrictions

ADUs are often stymied by excessive regulations such as owner-occupancy requirements, and complicated forms, extra reviews and approvals. Send a letter — say you want to welcome ADUs into Prince George’s neighborhoods, without a lot of onerous restrictions. 

Weigh in before the Council’s committee meeting on September 3, 2026

Streamline development review in Prince George’s – reduce uncertainty & excessive process, oppose LDR 153-2026 (Maryland)

Posted on by Cheryl Cort

July 30, 2026

Prince George’s County Planning Board, M-NCPPC

1616 McCormick Drive, Largo MD  Via: pgcpb@mncppc.org

RE: Oppose LDR 153-2026, reduce uncertainty & excessive process

Dear members of the Board:

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 urge the Planning Board to work with Planning Department staff and County Council members to create better development streamlining procedures instead of supporting this LDR. This LDR lacks legal soundness and misses key issues in improving the county’s development review process. 

Prince George’s development review process is out of step with best practices. This harms the county by discouraging competitive, quality developers from wanting to take a chance on the county. It short changes community members who want to see planning turn into quality homes, and mixed use places.  

The zoning rewrite was supposed to remove procedural burdens. The key goals of zoning rewrite were to streamline and create predictability. It was supposed to provide clear input from the public at the outset. The new zoning rules require a pre-application meeting with the community which is designed to get stakeholders’ feedback at the beginning of the process — before the development team had invested in costly plans and advanced designs. Before this requirement, the community often found out about a project in their area with a Planning Board hearing notice.

As part of the modernization of the zoning regulations — the zoning rewrite set a clear baseline that could be reviewed administratively. The code was made more regulatory, providing more detailed, form-based standards. 

The new zoning code would streamline review with increased public engagement on the front end, followed by administrative, matter-of-right review that did not require additional steps of discretionary or political-level review on the back end. However, the administrative unpredictability was retained through “election to review” or “call up” by the County Council. This meant zoning regulations were more detailed but all the procedural uncertainties remained. This is not the improvement and streamlining we had hoped for. 

Far more development review could be done administratively. Detailed Site Plans (DSPs) are often a poor use of everyone’s time. The staff report for LDR 153-2026 recommends exempting single-family detached and three family dwellings from DSP review, citing the negligible value added after a subdivision review, which addresses all the major impacts and requirements. Two-family dwellings could also be grouped with townhouse dwellings and the DSP threshold increased. 

Most importantly, retaining the District Council election to review an application or “call up” — stands out as a major impediment to predictability for the review process. The public engagement is on the front side of planning and individual projects. Call up generates uncertainty on the back end that takes applicable laws, zoning regulations, and master plan recommendations into a political realm. If the county cannot catch up to other jurisdictions by eliminating call up, it should at least set new parameters around it to limit the downsides of this approach.

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely,

Cheryl Cort

DC & Prince George’s Policy Director