Arlington County Civic Federation:
Proposed Resolution on Changes to Zoning Rules in Arlington County

On 19 September 2001, the Arlington County Civic Federation held a special meeting to address potential changes to existing zoning that would limit "coverage" for residential lots. Members heard presentations from a guest panel and then completed a survey developed by the Federation's Planning & Zoning Committee. The 53 returned surveys were analyzed to develop the resolution below, to be voted on at the 2 October 2001 Civic Federation meeting.

Williamsburg has four delegates who are members of the Civic Federation. Please review the proposed resolution below. It reflects the lack of consensus among Arlington residents on what, it anything, to do about the current restrictions on maximum lot coverage. The draft resolution, by calling for additional study, would ask the County to postpone a decision on this issue. Please let us know your views on this resolution by 2 October. Email Ellen Jones.

Proposed Resolution

Wheras, Civic Federation survey results indicated that

• An equal percent are for and against the current proposals while about 25% are undecided. Delegates do not believe that the proposed changes will prevent the homes cited as egregious examples of infill.

• About half of the delegates and others attending the meeting do favor some sort of new coverage restrictions. However, only a third supported applying restrictions to all R05 through R-20 properties.

• When asked to indicate support for specific options, none got support from a majority. The top selection was restricting coverage based on lot sizes (31%), followed by retaining the current limits (25%), no response (25%), zoning districts with caps (19%), and zoning districts (13%).

• 50%of delegates are concerned that additional coverage restrictions will hurt home values. Members want more information about how proposed changes will reduce homeowners' flexibility for renovating and expanding existing homes.

• A large majority does not agree with what is used to calculate coverage. The most frequently cited example was inclusion of driveways.

• More people were concerned about oversize houses (44%) than pipestem development (28%). Those concerned about pipestems preferred to limit this development based on lot frontage minimums rather than on the lot geometry.

And whereas, the Civic Federation has passed prior resolution supporting efforts to control infill development, however the Civic Federation has not reached consensus about the current proposals to limit infill.

Be it resolved that the Federation urges County staff and the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee of the Planning Commission to:

1. Better define the characteristics of infill that are undesirable and examine ways to control those characteristics.

2. Reexamine the Zoning Administrator's lists for calculating coverage.

3. Provide data and examples about how various proposals for coverage restrictions will impact existing homes in each of the zoning categories (R-5, R-6, R-8, R-10, and R-20) and in different types of neighborhoods.

Return Home