Article Text
Fairfax County officials are considering changes to a 67-year-old residential height rule as increasingly elaborate home designs test the meaning of the county’s 35-foot limit.
The restriction has applied to single-family construction since 1959, but officials say the way height is calculated can be difficult for residents, builders and enforcement staff to understand.
“Simplicity is important for a lot of reasons,” Board of Supervisors Chair Jeff McKay said during a Land Use Policy Committee meeting. He urged the county to adopt a standard that is easy to understand and enforce.
The zoning ordinance currently measures a house’s height from the average grade—the slope of the land beneath the building—to its roof. That definition has left room for varying interpretations.
By the early 2000s, developers were using those interpretations to construct some homes that rose as much as 45 feet above grade, according to county staff.
“The homes were just getting bigger,” Assistant Zoning Administrator Drew Hushour said. He noted that increasingly intricate designs over the past 15 to 20 years have pushed the limits of the existing rules.
Calculating height is relatively straightforward for a flat-roofed home. For a house with a gabled roof, however, the county measures to the midpoint of the roof rather than its highest ridge.
“It is very technical,” said Sully District Supervisor Kathy Smith, who chairs the committee.
Three options under consideration
At the March 10 meeting, county staff presented three possible approaches:
- Keep the current regulations while rewriting the zoning language for clarity.
- Establish a maximum roof-peak height between 37.5 and 40 feet, with staff favoring 38 feet.
- Measure height using the roof’s highest eave instead of its highest ridge.
“Each of these methods is going to give you a different result,” Hushour said.
Supervisors who stated a preference showed little interest in retaining the existing system.
Dranesville District Supervisor Jimmy Bierman said the first option was “probably not the way to go” and described the alternatives as steps in the right direction. He said constituents regularly complain about the size of new residential construction in McLean and Great Falls.
Franconia District Supervisor Rodney Lusk also opposed keeping the current rules.
Providence District Supervisor Dalia Palchik called for clear guardrails that the public and building industry can readily understand. Mount Vernon District Supervisor Dan Storck and Springfield District Supervisor Pat Herrity similarly emphasized simplicity.
Herrity asked the county in November to revisit its residential height rules after complaints arose over a three-story home addition in Greenbriar.
County plans public outreach
Finding a single policy for the entire county may prove difficult. Several supervisors suggested distinguishing between new subdivisions and infill construction, while McKay cautioned that no two Fairfax County lots are identical.
Staff plans to meet with community members and industry organizations before returning to the board with recommendations by the end of the year. McKay called that schedule aggressive but achievable and urged extensive public engagement.
County research did not uncover a definitive explanation for why officials selected 35 feet as the limit in 1959.
Staff intends to resolve the height question before considering other zoning changes affecting residential development. Hushour described the work as a logical first step toward broader revisions.
“We know there’s a bigger issue to look at,” Smith said.
Hunter Mill District Supervisor Walter Alcorn agreed, calling the height proposal “just a little piece of a bigger discussion.”