[{"_1":2,"_109":-5,"_110":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,97],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6530604,"mediaKeyId","3647520-a41aace3f7d0dc0c85e14c8bfcd7e36c","parentId",3647520,"title","Prince William supervisors adopt affordable-dwelling-unit ordinance after hours of debate","audioSeconds",5886,"startMs",4763000,"endMs",10649000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3647520-a41aace3f7d0dc0c85e14c8bfcd7e36c&start=4763&end=10649","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3647520-a41aace3f7d0dc0c85e14c8bfcd7e36c/thumbnail_4763000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6530604/Prince-William-County/Virginia/Prince-William-supervisors-adopt-affordable-dwelling-unit-ordinance-after-hours-of-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6530604-f01995930b6e79ec62a300be7862e3cd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771106172&Signature=dDedKlZQNkk8TjD4CkzEnP-NXZGuOhT9ATu~AESHsq7wKDBF0DpkRhkS4RWpTcnyoXDIaOq0~A9JSkZSq2qtF09UGrA~-apbq1PEWWQIu5qKvPkQDZ~RNpsPNpU-9PRHUG06oPrNe0LH5hPT3VbAZh4sP3QLUMCUcl~UM62xCd9Sy4gdsbeifWXfQjBLJcw1J87sBDQ~7~Y0AHcHqxb6g6JhMWml3t8c4l242-89OvJCN0dT4UGxG5c6PjaSxG4VxQDQd5wQNHQaOXxBmwGMqiJTjpUvk5mF2bx3qqXfXdTO4fIbQjX-xiB9y3-3MRU-j3UP3zzGX--PTVY2qMM2-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Prince William County","date","2025-06-03T00:00:00Z","article","Prince William County supervisors adopted a new Affordable Dwelling Unit ordinance on June 3 after extensive public comment and several hours of debate.

The 5-3 vote followed testimony from faith and tenant-organizing groups, housing advocates and opponents from neighborhoods that expressed both urgency over housing costs and concern about how the ordinance is written and enforced. The final ordinance uses the voluntary, state-enabled ADU framework to require proffered negotiations and creates a path for developers to provide affordable units, pay into the county housing trust fund, or use other incentives the county offers.

The ordinance is intended to increase the supply of mixed-income housing near transit and major commercial centers and to allow the county's housing trust fund to be used for projects that produce or preserve affordable units. Supporters said the ordinance unlocks the county's $15 million housing trust fund and is a necessary first tool to expand housing options; opponents said the ordinance places too much implementation discretion with staff and the zoning administrator and could strip the elected board of critical land-use authority.

Why it mattered

Prince William has a documented shortage of rental and for-sale housing at a wide range of price points. Advocates — including faith-based VOICE representatives and tenants'rights groups — told supervisors that families are being priced out of the county and urged passage. Rev. Keith Savage said the proposal will help \"people being priced out of living in their own communities,\" and VOICE leaders asked the board to \"let the housing trust fund do its job.\"

At the same time, several supervisors and public witnesses urged revisions before adoption. Supervisor Weir said the draft contained unresolved legal and enforcement questions and told the board, \"This thing needs a whole lot more work,\" citing concerns about appeals and the burden of proof in waiver requests. Other supervisors asked for clearer definitions for terms such as \"moderate income,\" stronger compliance monitoring, and a predictable review process if the ordinance does not perform as intended.

What the ordinance does

- Establishes an ADU program using the state authority cited by staff; the county's ADU framework is voluntary for developers but includes conditions and incentives intended to encourage inclusion of affordable units in market-rate projects.
- Creates requirements and administrative processes for affordable-unit deed restrictions, rental affordability periods, and options to contribute to the county housing trust fund as an alternative to on-site units.
- Sets program details (income targeting, example sales-price calculations tied to HUD AMI figures, and monitoring) to be administered by the Office of Housing.
- Directs planning and housing staff to track outcomes and report to the board; supervisors asked staff to return with implementation results and recommended a public review process for the program.

Public comment and board debate

More than a dozen speakers represented tenant organizations, faith groups and housing advocates. Rev. Mandy North and other VOICE leaders said delay would leave the county's housing trust fund idle and urged immediate adoption. Jill Norcross of the Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance told the board that neighboring jurisdictions had used similar tools to add housing and that passing the ordinance would allow the county to begin producing units and using the trust fund. Tenants and workers'group leaders also urged targeting deeply affordable units to the households most in need.

Opponents and several supervisors cautioned that the ordinance's language left too much authority with staff and the zoning administrator, asked whether the county would be able to enforce restrictions, and urged clearer definitions and a review mechanism. Jennifer Osborne, a local resident, said she supported more housing generally but warned the draft had \"too many loopholes\" and could shift development authority away from the elected board.

Votes and next steps

- The main ADU ordinance passed 5 to 3. Supervisors Vega, Weir and Gordy voted no.
- The board had earlier divided out the creation of a county housing fund (separate subsection). The housing-fund item was then voted on separately and approved by a separate recorded vote.

Staff will implement the program through the Office of Housing. The housing office and County Attorney's Office will provide the board with periodic implementation reports; staff said they will track unit production, funding uses, and compliance with deed restrictions. The board also directed continued outreach to developers, housing advocates and the county's state legislative delegation to pursue statutory options for stronger local tools.

Speakers quoted in this article are limited to those identified in county meeting records and the public transcript. Supervisor Roger Boddie, Supervisor Daniel Franklin, Supervisor Andrea Bailey, Supervisor Kenny Boddie, Supervisor John A. Gordy, Supervisor Victor Angry, Supervisor Frank Weir, Tanya Washington (Planning director), Joan Duckett (Director of Housing), Reverend Keith Savage, Reverend Mandy North and Jill Norcross were among the speakers and staff cited in the transcript.

Ending

Adoption begins a multi-year, phased effort to add new housing types near existing transit nodes and to begin using the county's housing trust fund. Supervisors who opposed the ordinance said they would continue to press for statutory changes or local refinements; supporters said the county could not delay further and must use the fund and local tools to increase housing supply now.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Prince William County - Board of County Supervisors Meeting - Jun 03, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Prince William County supervisors adopted a new Affordable Dwelling Unit ordinance on June 3 after extensive public comment and several hours of debate.","taxTitle","Prince William County, Virginia","taxId",21018,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6530594,"Board approves kennel in Nokesville with conditions after neighborhood debate",15549,3317000,18866000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3647520-a41aace3f7d0dc0c85e14c8bfcd7e36c&start=3317&end=18866","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3647520-a41aace3f7d0dc0c85e14c8bfcd7e36c/thumbnail_3317000.jpg","/articles/6530594/Prince-William-County/Virginia/Board-approves-kennel-in-Nokesville-with-conditions-after-neighborhood-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6530594-8981a80cdb69c21aaf871f4bc685651b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771106172&Signature=MR5PFdYlOJGcbPuINxRYV~VDGcDa-PD3AFFpvgHXoccneDWg-UQccKIJ7ILykKcG1IdE-qtpuyfAI5qtJWtSk-4rMESglqOFRQQ-FJYHmAxFz73XcZU2ARo1rzWszSq67o0JAEpPpT5Krr1Caqu-l9YkaHXPelftJQvUSqlRUoA64haOuZCNgUcjwsSC5Pq3xZnDYUexfInakoZh7hoYawkBRbYEXiNqv0LAuBl1C1XhOKht-2n7O2t11~OQEwshC~fowNnhNhaCKtBnecbRAHwzk32Q4ygJoOOxoZ-yyy2yWVbG4RDoIYoVEF3Tto52cSsy6N0MV6q5r1imvj7rZg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Prince William County supervisors approved a special-use permit on June 3 to allow a commercial dog kennel and related services on a 10.7-acre property in Nokesville.

Applicant Kevin Kane sought permission for up to 40 dogs, training classes, grooming, limited retail (for clients) and breeding with a cap on litters. Planning staff and the planning commission recommended approval with conditions. Supervisors discussed sight lines, the location of the commercial entrance and extensive sound mitigation measures proposed by the applicant.

Key conditions and mitigations

- Noise mitigation: Applicant committed to interior sound-attenuating materials and exterior \"acoustic fence\" features designed to lower sound transmission. Staff included a condition that specifies use of sound-mitigation materials in kennel construction.
- Built form and buffering: The kennels will use barn-style metal buildings set back from Fleetwood Drive. The board approved using the existing residential driveway as the commercial access to avoid a new second cut and preserve a tree buffer along the road.
- Animal limits and operations: The planning commission had requested reducing annual litter counts; the final conditions limited breeding and required indoor containment at night; waste handling and sanitation procedures were specified by staff.

Neighborhood concerns

Nearby residents who spoke in opposition said they feared continuous daytime barking, groundwater and runoff effects, and diminished property values. Several near neighbors said they had initially supported a smaller operation but were alarmed when the application requested up to 40 animals and a commercial driveway visible from Fleetwood Drive. Neighbors also raised flooding and septic concerns on parts of the site.

Applicant response

Kevin Kane said he had worked with kennel operators and suppliers on acoustic products and that several similar rural kennels operate without community impacts; he offered details about building layout (indoor/outdoor runs with guillotine doors, interior absorption materials and perimeter fencing) and operational rules (dogs indoors at night, waste collection protocols and use of disinfectants common to kennel operations).

Board action and next steps

The board approved the SUP and added a condition to use the existing residence driveway for commercial access (to preserve the tree line along Fleetwood Drive) and to maintain the parking area as gravel. Supervisors noted the permit was subject to county code enforcement and noise ordinance limits; staff will respond to any code complaints if operations exceed permitted levels.

Speakers quoted in this story are limited to the public transcript and the meeting record, including applicant Kevin Kane and planning case manager Alex Venegas.

Ending

Approval allows the applicant to begin permitting and construction work under the SUP conditions. Several supervisors stressed that code enforcement remains the backstop if noise or other impacts exceed limits in practice.","The Board of Supervisors approved a special-use permit for a commercial kennel in Nokesville on June 3, imposing sound-mitigation, access and operational conditions after neighbors raised noise and runoff concerns.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":79,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":82,"_51":93,"_53":94,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":95,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":96,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6530589,"Supervisors approve continuation of federal inmate-reimbursement funds despite community concern",693,4010000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3647520-a41aace3f7d0dc0c85e14c8bfcd7e36c&start=3317&end=4010","/articles/6530589/Prince-William-County/Virginia/Supervisors-approve-continuation-of-federal-inmate-reimbursement-funds-despite-community-concern","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6530589-438191dbc728d5c518bef5aad34ff058/orig.mp4?Expires=1771106172&Signature=PG9g97yjRYXRqc3~xoZAc6ZqQ90u3LLqtnrEtXaFt7yNJHVJTuhnTiwsHO8AthloH8geITqZIIzsrLDaCAi-sLIMMH3mji1hTHQKsO08b1cxUw~ZtUTs2EIkvB7W3INTcmmKt~RL2F8vd1cHD9mfO89htoq48KI~wOPRWcYaTJtO~xpXj84grm7w56QTS6C26tA5LAIXbV0r469iaJ1LWGTqo7RcJ1yNkrJCKhdulsZrlr2R3d3OCG2aFrbrjPBcvoLf~cEOhGnau2kqwN07Ruzgm9dXYiNiSvPATT-TxcPJJnZaevl9-97IJ7i1LUjghhq49FO7bNHILem9AOuIbQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Prince William County Board of Supervisors voted on June 3 to continue accepting federal- and state-administered reimbursements that offset local jail costs associated with housing certain noncitizen detainees.

The funding is intended to reimburse local governments for a portion of the costs of housing detainees who meet specific criteria (convictions and lengths of stay) and is used for jail salaries, benefits and maintenance rather than enforcement activity, officials said. Colonel West of the Adult Detention Center told the board the program is intended as reimbursement, not an enforcement contract with federal immigration authorities; a private contractor, Justice Benefits Inc., does not collect or transmit detainee data, he said.

Key board discussion points

- Verification and retention: County staff explained they transmit detainee identification to state/federal systems via live-scan fingerprinting and retain certain records for statutory retention periods (staff said files are retained up to three years; medical files may be retained longer).
- Use of funds: Officials said the reimbursements help offset payroll and overhead costs for the detention center, including staff salaries and benefits, medical staff and maintenance, and do not fund additional enforcement operations.
- Community concern: Supervisors and public speakers expressed concern about potential chilling effects on immigrant communities and about the risk of incentives that might encourage increased detentions. Several board members said they would submit follow-up questions in writing to the county executive and requested detailed reporting on the program's operation.

Vote and follow-up

- The motion to approve the reimbursement program was adopted by the board in a recorded vote (transcript shows passage; Chair asked staff to provide follow-up answers to outstanding written questions). Several supervisors requested additional directings to staff and indicated they would seek detailed follow-up memos.
- Supervisors requested more detailed reporting on program eligibility, data-sharing procedures and financial accounting; staff said the county retains documentation and files in accordance with statutory requirements and will provide answers.

Ending

County leadership said the program has existed in some form for more than 20 years, serving as a partial reimbursement for detention overhead rather than an enforcement contract. Supervisors who supported continuation emphasized the county's need to recover costs; others pressed for transparency and safeguards to avoid any perception that reimbursement creates incentives for detentions.

Speakers in this article are limited to the meeting transcript and official staff statements; quotations were made by Colonel West and by several supervisors expressing concerns.","The Board voted to accept federal/state reimbursements for costs tied to housing certain noncitizen detainees on June 3, a move county officials said offsets jail overhead but does not fund enforcement operations.",{"_33":98,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":99,"_41":100,"_43":101,"_45":102,"_47":103,"_49":104,"_51":105,"_53":106,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":107,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":108,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6530599,"Board OKs Manassas Mall mixed-use rezoning to jump-start Sudley Road redevelopment",4875,18802000,23677000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3647520-a41aace3f7d0dc0c85e14c8bfcd7e36c&start=18802&end=23677","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3647520-a41aace3f7d0dc0c85e14c8bfcd7e36c/thumbnail_18802000.jpg","/articles/6530599/Prince-William-County/Virginia/Board-OKs-Manassas-Mall-mixed-use-rezoning-to-jump-start-Sudley-Road-redevelopment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6530599-c09a9bb51ed6b445dc8f619c0acf6312/orig.mp4?Expires=1771106172&Signature=QY0wkMU-p7l5NdlH207E9IEY2gUSqFVBreeUFxxGOU0i8Xv5vpIiUiPi54w6QU8AVBffCSwqjx55mXq3sUlYCnwTFHZJ1rHSvZ7PYK~M3FGYFzubSKfwsesW83-DoMkbScUgwHbcQzAE7m5aWgCHOxmXsshDagydEx4-1pvH~fQd-yEXafz8Qi5FEr2TNwNEzO6rmVpUarHOx04X~SgIFXbiZYaxZyQNByqnPHlux4B68J55KEwbB8FJT0EAn-DMalWERabJXBTm-iry59GM79hdN7FeY6A-9VGloX7DvnjgaQbNCY-C0rAQL0HLecyUIVRxHi0raH1gnW5IXnPWBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Prince William County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a multi-parcel rezoning of the Manassas Mall property on June 3, authorizing a mixed-use urban (T6) zoning framework for a phased plan that mixes retail, multi-story rental housing and structured parking.

The application, led by Lionheart Capital and presented by legal counsel Michael Vanderpool and a multi-disciplinary design team, will convert roughly 60.6 acres now zoned B-1 into a transect-style mixed-use district. The first phase, called Verdant Village, will include pedestrian promenades, ground-floor retail designed to serve new residents and customers, and multi-family units above structured parking. The project team has committed to a series of design and public-access elements to improve walkability and connect the new development to the existing mall.

Why it matters

The vote crystallizes a long-discussed redevelopment strategy for the Sudley Road/Manassas Mall corridor. County planners have identified the site as a redevelopment catalyst in the comprehensive plan, and the project aims to convert an auto-oriented mall parking field into a walkable, mixed-use center that could support enhanced transit service.

Key elements

- Project scope: Approximately 1,041 multifamily units (combination of townhomes, mid-rise apartments and podium buildings), about 47,000 square feet of commercial space, and pedestrian-focused promenades that break up large parking fields into small, walkable quadrants.
- Parking and circulation: Structured parking (at-grade podium decks rather than fully subterranean parking because of site constraints) and a planned reduction of surface parking with landscaping, promenades and pathways to link retail and residential areas.
- Transit and access: The team proposed an additional bus stop and said the site is already served by existing OmniRide routes; the developer and Omniride staff discussed micro-transit and enhanced bus frequency.
- Phasing: The first build-out is the Verdant Village; subsequent phases will redevelop adjacent mall parking, with commitments to return to the board with specifics for each later phase.

Public response and board discussion

Public testimony was mostly supportive at the public hearing: residents and civic advocates praised the creation of a walkable center and a new sense of place. Several speakers — including local residents and representatives of civic groups — urged the developer and county to ensure pedestrian and bike connectivity, prioritize native landscaping, and encourage local and minority-owned businesses to occupy retail spaces.

Board members and staff emphasized design quality, long-range transportation planning for the corridor and the need to integrate the new development with the mall. Planning staff recommended approval and said the project aligned with the comprehensive plan's Sudley Road redevelopment policies.

Votes and next steps

- Rezoning approved by the board (vote recorded as unanimous in the meeting transcript; Supervisor Vega was recorded absent from the final tally).
- The applicant must return for site plans and additional approvals for future phases; staff and the applicant said they will coordinate further on a corridor-level transportation management plan and transit coordination.

Speakers quoted in this article are limited to participants identified in the public transcript and county staff records: Mike Vanderpool (applicant's attorney), James Mallor (architect), Alex Venegas (planning), Tanya Washington (planning director), Rachel Ellis (public support), and Elena Schlossberg (community advocate).

Ending

The county's approval clears the way for a multi-year, multi-phase redevelopment intended to convert an auto-oriented mall site into a denser, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use village. Supervisors and staff said they will watch later phases and return to the board for approvals of detailed site plans, transportation mitigation and retail-tenancy plans.","The Board unanimously approved a rezoning plan on June 3 that allows dense, mixed-use redevelopment of the Manassas Mall site, clearing the way for a multi-phase project of apartments, townhomes, street-level retail and pedestrian promenades intended to create a transit-oriented village and spur redevelopment across the corridor.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Prince William supervisors adopt affordable-dwelling-unit ordinance after hours of debate

Board approves kennel in Nokesville with conditions after neighborhood debate

Supervisors approve continuation of federal inmate-reimbursement funds despite community concern

Board OKs Manassas Mall mixed-use rezoning to jump-start Sudley Road redevelopment