Overriding local zoning to allow multi-family units in suburban neighborhoods in VA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is way too long, but do you all realize that the upzoning effort in Arlington will not be all of Arlington, just areas where the county picks? So, some neighborhoods will get up zoned, some won’t? And where do you all think that upzoning will happen. Not in north Arlington ....

This is not just about Arlington. This thread started with a bill from a Herndon/Loudoun delegate in Virginia legislature. Fortunately, his bill failed. The bill would have outlawed single family zoning. I assume that would have been anywhere.

Correct. Much ado about nothing, introduced by a guy who'll get defeated in the next election if he faces an even half-decent opponent.

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/failure-to-launch-for-virginias-two-family-zoning-bills/16372

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain exactly what the fuss is? If zoning restrictions are loosened you can still live in a neighborhood is SFH - you and your neighbors just have to pay for it. Probably more, since it will be market rate. Do people really think that developers are going to put apartment buildings on 6000 sq ft lots? I could see how it would be more of an issue in further suburbs where lots are larger. FWIW I live in Arlington and I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world if I lived next to a duplex...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain exactly what the fuss is? If zoning restrictions are loosened you can still live in a neighborhood is SFH - you and your neighbors just have to pay for it. Probably more, since it will be market rate. Do people really think that developers are going to put apartment buildings on 6000 sq ft lots? I could see how it would be more of an issue in further suburbs where lots are larger. FWIW I live in Arlington and I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world if I lived next to a duplex...

This would allow your nextdoor neighbor to change the dynamics, not just the developers. So, you just purchase a house in a SF neighborhood on a small lot--less than .25 acre. A couple of neighbors decide to expand to duplexes. Parking? Infrastructure? etc. Would you be happy? Remember, when you purchased, it was zoned SF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain exactly what the fuss is? If zoning restrictions are loosened you can still live in a neighborhood is SFH - you and your neighbors just have to pay for it. Probably more, since it will be market rate. Do people really think that developers are going to put apartment buildings on 6000 sq ft lots? I could see how it would be more of an issue in further suburbs where lots are larger. FWIW I live in Arlington and I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world if I lived next to a duplex...

This would allow your nextdoor neighbor to change the dynamics, not just the developers. So, you just purchase a house in a SF neighborhood on a small lot--less than .25 acre. A couple of neighbors decide to expand to duplexes. Parking? Infrastructure? etc. Would you be happy? Remember, when you purchased, it was zoned SF.

When you purchase, you purchase the property. You do not purchase a guarantee that everything associated with your purchase will remain the same - including zoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain exactly what the fuss is? If zoning restrictions are loosened you can still live in a neighborhood is SFH - you and your neighbors just have to pay for it. Probably more, since it will be market rate. Do people really think that developers are going to put apartment buildings on 6000 sq ft lots? I could see how it would be more of an issue in further suburbs where lots are larger. FWIW I live in Arlington and I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world if I lived next to a duplex...

This would allow your nextdoor neighbor to change the dynamics, not just the developers. So, you just purchase a house in a SF neighborhood on a small lot--less than .25 acre. A couple of neighbors decide to expand to duplexes. Parking? Infrastructure? etc. Would you be happy? Remember, when you purchased, it was zoned SF.

When you purchase, you purchase the property. You do not purchase a guarantee that everything associated with your purchase will remain the same - including zoning.

Technically, yes. But people also have a reasonable expectation that zoning in SFH will not change. It is not something done often or lightly. If homeowners no longer have a reasonable expectation that their neighborhood will maintain the zoning it has had for decades, the value of the entire neighborhood goes down. That is a problem, especially for areas where homeowners have not enjoyed the crazy appreciation of other neighborhoods, such as parts of south arlington. It will certainly make parking worse, which is a real problem for several south arlington communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain exactly what the fuss is? If zoning restrictions are loosened you can still live in a neighborhood is SFH - you and your neighbors just have to pay for it. Probably more, since it will be market rate. Do people really think that developers are going to put apartment buildings on 6000 sq ft lots? I could see how it would be more of an issue in further suburbs where lots are larger. FWIW I live in Arlington and I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world if I lived next to a duplex...

This would allow your nextdoor neighbor to change the dynamics, not just the developers. So, you just purchase a house in a SF neighborhood on a small lot--less than .25 acre. A couple of neighbors decide to expand to duplexes. Parking? Infrastructure? etc. Would you be happy? Remember, when you purchased, it was zoned SF.

When you purchase, you purchase the property. You do not purchase a guarantee that everything associated with your purchase will remain the same - including zoning.

Technically, yes. But people also have a reasonable expectation that zoning in SFH will not change. It is not something done often or lightly. If homeowners no longer have a reasonable expectation that their neighborhood will maintain the zoning it has had for decades, the value of the entire neighborhood goes down. That is a problem, especially for areas where homeowners have not enjoyed the crazy appreciation of other neighborhoods, such as parts of south arlington. It will certainly make parking worse, which is a real problem for several south arlington communities.

Not technically. Actually. Factually. That's the reality.

People may expect that the zoning won't change, but the reality is that the zoning can change. People should take that reality into account.

As for the idea that property values will go down if property owners are allowed to build duplexes instead of uniplexes? That's also factually incorrect. You, personally, may prefer not to live in a neighborhood that includes duplexes. But notwithstanding your personal preferences, the property values actually go up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain exactly what the fuss is? If zoning restrictions are loosened you can still live in a neighborhood is SFH - you and your neighbors just have to pay for it. Probably more, since it will be market rate. Do people really think that developers are going to put apartment buildings on 6000 sq ft lots? I could see how it would be more of an issue in further suburbs where lots are larger. FWIW I live in Arlington and I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world if I lived next to a duplex...

This would allow your nextdoor neighbor to change the dynamics, not just the developers. So, you just purchase a house in a SF neighborhood on a small lot--less than .25 acre. A couple of neighbors decide to expand to duplexes. Parking? Infrastructure? etc. Would you be happy? Remember, when you purchased, it was zoned SF.

My comment is not directed to changing dynamics of a neighborhood or corresponding home values. Rather, it has to do with the infrastructure per se (e.g., water, gas, sewer, etc.). I'm wondering if the mains designed to serve a residential subdivision of SFHs are designed to handle increased loads if those lots starting holding duplexes, triplexes, etc. Perhaps the infrastructure is limiting factor -- or at least a deterrent to upzoning in some areas/neighborhoods?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is talking about the state deciding everything. Or about abolishing local government.

Oh, I see, so you only want the state to decide things when it's things you agree with? Gotcha. Land use is about as local as local government gets.

I am pointing out that lots of things are decided by state as well as local government - particularly in Virginia, which is a Dillon Rule state.

And one of those things is land use. Currently. Right now.

All this is doing is creating precedents that will come back to haunt you. Don't complain when Republicans retake the state government and ban local governments from addressing climate change.

This wont stop them. Some places already ban localities from doing things like taking down confederate monuments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain exactly what the fuss is? If zoning restrictions are loosened you can still live in a neighborhood is SFH - you and your neighbors just have to pay for it. Probably more, since it will be market rate. Do people really think that developers are going to put apartment buildings on 6000 sq ft lots? I could see how it would be more of an issue in further suburbs where lots are larger. FWIW I live in Arlington and I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world if I lived next to a duplex...

This would allow your nextdoor neighbor to change the dynamics, not just the developers. So, you just purchase a house in a SF neighborhood on a small lot--less than .25 acre. A couple of neighbors decide to expand to duplexes. Parking? Infrastructure? etc. Would you be happy? Remember, when you purchased, it was zoned SF.

My comment is not directed to changing dynamics of a neighborhood or corresponding home values. Rather, it has to do with the infrastructure per se (e.g., water, gas, sewer, etc.). I'm wondering if the mains designed to serve a residential subdivision of SFHs are designed to handle increased loads if those lots starting holding duplexes, triplexes, etc. Perhaps the infrastructure is limiting factor -- or at least a deterrent to upzoning in some areas/neighborhoods?

Would you have similar concerns if a family of 8 people moved into the one-unit dwelling next door to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain exactly what the fuss is? If zoning restrictions are loosened you can still live in a neighborhood is SFH - you and your neighbors just have to pay for it. Probably more, since it will be market rate. Do people really think that developers are going to put apartment buildings on 6000 sq ft lots? I could see how it would be more of an issue in further suburbs where lots are larger. FWIW I live in Arlington and I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world if I lived next to a duplex...

This would allow your nextdoor neighbor to change the dynamics, not just the developers. So, you just purchase a house in a SF neighborhood on a small lot--less than .25 acre. A couple of neighbors decide to expand to duplexes. Parking? Infrastructure? etc. Would you be happy? Remember, when you purchased, it was zoned SF.

I’m the PP who asked the question. I guess, yes I would be happy. I have concerns about the county’s parking policies and their plans for storm water management, but I have both with current development too. I feel like if you value living surrounded by sfh, then sell. Reducing zoning restrictions will let property values correct to free market prices. So if you value a sfh near a transportation corridor, you pay market value, ie compete with a developer. I don’t think it’s necessarily a right to live close in, in a “walkable neighborhood” and have a sfh. I have frequently heard the argument that “Arlington is more urban than some parts of DC” or “Arlington used to be part of DC so it isn’t really a suburb” but part of urban living is high density housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain exactly what the fuss is? If zoning restrictions are loosened you can still live in a neighborhood is SFH - you and your neighbors just have to pay for it. Probably more, since it will be market rate. Do people really think that developers are going to put apartment buildings on 6000 sq ft lots? I could see how it would be more of an issue in further suburbs where lots are larger. FWIW I live in Arlington and I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world if I lived next to a duplex...

This would allow your nextdoor neighbor to change the dynamics, not just the developers. So, you just purchase a house in a SF neighborhood on a small lot--less than .25 acre. A couple of neighbors decide to expand to duplexes. Parking? Infrastructure? etc. Would you be happy? Remember, when you purchased, it was zoned SF.

My comment is not directed to changing dynamics of a neighborhood or corresponding home values. Rather, it has to do with the infrastructure per se (e.g., water, gas, sewer, etc.). I'm wondering if the mains designed to serve a residential subdivision of SFHs are designed to handle increased loads if those lots starting holding duplexes, triplexes, etc. Perhaps the infrastructure is limiting factor -- or at least a deterrent to upzoning in some areas/neighborhoods?

Would you have similar concerns if a family of 8 people moved into the one-unit dwelling next door to you?

Where is there a "concern"?

A valid question was asked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain exactly what the fuss is? If zoning restrictions are loosened you can still live in a neighborhood is SFH - you and your neighbors just have to pay for it. Probably more, since it will be market rate. Do people really think that developers are going to put apartment buildings on 6000 sq ft lots? I could see how it would be more of an issue in further suburbs where lots are larger. FWIW I live in Arlington and I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world if I lived next to a duplex...

This would allow your nextdoor neighbor to change the dynamics, not just the developers. So, you just purchase a house in a SF neighborhood on a small lot--less than .25 acre. A couple of neighbors decide to expand to duplexes. Parking? Infrastructure? etc. Would you be happy? Remember, when you purchased, it was zoned SF.

My comment is not directed to changing dynamics of a neighborhood or corresponding home values. Rather, it has to do with the infrastructure per se (e.g., water, gas, sewer, etc.). I'm wondering if the mains designed to serve a residential subdivision of SFHs are designed to handle increased loads if those lots starting holding duplexes, triplexes, etc. Perhaps the infrastructure is limiting factor -- or at least a deterrent to upzoning in some areas/neighborhoods?

Would you have similar concerns if a family of 8 people moved into the one-unit dwelling next door to you?

Where is there a "concern"?

A valid question was asked.

OK. Would you ask the same question if a family of 8 people moved into the one-unit dwelling next door to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain exactly what the fuss is? If zoning restrictions are loosened you can still live in a neighborhood is SFH - you and your neighbors just have to pay for it. Probably more, since it will be market rate. Do people really think that developers are going to put apartment buildings on 6000 sq ft lots? I could see how it would be more of an issue in further suburbs where lots are larger. FWIW I live in Arlington and I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world if I lived next to a duplex...

This would allow your nextdoor neighbor to change the dynamics, not just the developers. So, you just purchase a house in a SF neighborhood on a small lot--less than .25 acre. A couple of neighbors decide to expand to duplexes. Parking? Infrastructure? etc. Would you be happy? Remember, when you purchased, it was zoned SF.

My comment is not directed to changing dynamics of a neighborhood or corresponding home values. Rather, it has to do with the infrastructure per se (e.g., water, gas, sewer, etc.). I'm wondering if the mains designed to serve a residential subdivision of SFHs are designed to handle increased loads if those lots starting holding duplexes, triplexes, etc. Perhaps the infrastructure is limiting factor -- or at least a deterrent to upzoning in some areas/neighborhoods?

Would you have similar concerns if a family of 8 people moved into the one-unit dwelling next door to you?

Where is there a "concern"?

A valid question was asked.

OK. Would you ask the same question if a family of 8 people moved into the one-unit dwelling next door to you?

NP. You’re missing the point. The PP is asking about whether something like an existing gas line under a residential street can handle 2x or 3x as many connections if the neighborhood is “upzoned.”

[Anonymous]

NP - isn’t this already an issue though? In my neighborhood families and developers alike are tearing down 3-4 bdrm/2 bath homes and replacing with 5 bed/5bath homes - sometimes 2 if developers split the lot. I would assume duplexes won’t be 5 bathrooms, but even if they are, isn’t this the same as the current situation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain exactly what the fuss is? If zoning restrictions are loosened you can still live in a neighborhood is SFH - you and your neighbors just have to pay for it. Probably more, since it will be market rate. Do people really think that developers are going to put apartment buildings on 6000 sq ft lots? I could see how it would be more of an issue in further suburbs where lots are larger. FWIW I live in Arlington and I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world if I lived next to a duplex...

This would allow your nextdoor neighbor to change the dynamics, not just the developers. So, you just purchase a house in a SF neighborhood on a small lot--less than .25 acre. A couple of neighbors decide to expand to duplexes. Parking? Infrastructure? etc. Would you be happy? Remember, when you purchased, it was zoned SF.

My comment is not directed to changing dynamics of a neighborhood or corresponding home values. Rather, it has to do with the infrastructure per se (e.g., water, gas, sewer, etc.). I'm wondering if the mains designed to serve a residential subdivision of SFHs are designed to handle increased loads if those lots starting holding duplexes, triplexes, etc. Perhaps the infrastructure is limiting factor -- or at least a deterrent to upzoning in some areas/neighborhoods?

Would you have similar concerns if a family of 8 people moved into the one-unit dwelling next door to you?

Where is there a "concern"?

A valid question was asked.

OK. Would you ask the same question if a family of 8 people moved into the one-unit dwelling next door to you?

NP. You’re missing the point. The PP is asking about whether something like an existing gas line under a residential street can handle 2x or 3x as many connections if the neighborhood is “upzoned.”

What's the difference between more people because of duplexes and more people because of bigger households/families? Wouldn't it come out the same for water and sewer, etc.?