Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission recommends ADU code changes to Town Council, seeks corrections and a clearer red line
Summary
The commission voted 4–1 to forward a revised Chapter 17.048 (ADU/JADU) to the Town Council with edits: add an 'interior livable space' definition, clarify fire‑sprinkler language to include JADUs, and recommend aligning incentive expiration with the housing element; commissioners also asked staff for accurate red‑line comparisons and clarifications on fees and amnesty timing.
At a continued public hearing on Feb. 19, Fairfax planning staff briefed the commission on proposed updates to Chapter 17.048 to align local ADU and junior ADU rules with recent state law changes and HCD guidance. Staff framed the draft as a combined package of state‑mandated updates, a local definition for "interior livable space," and a set of local clarifications for design standards.
Staff said the draft adds an "interior livable space" term to guide size calculations (subtracting equipment, closets and similar non‑habitable areas), tightens review timelines to meet Housing and Community Development (HCD) model language (for example, a 15‑day completeness determination), and implements HCD's class‑1 (ministerial) vs. class‑2 (locally regulated) distinction. Staff also described fee changes and an incentive/amnesty program: a 50% processing‑fee discount and a program expiration the council previously extended to Jan. 1, 2036; impact‑fee exemptions for small units (ADUs under 750 sq ft exempt from some impact fees; under 500 sq ft exempt from school fees) were reflected in the draft.
Commissioners focused on several specific issues. Commissioner Newton pressed for a clearer definition and suggested referencing "livable space" rather than "living area," and proposed the commission recommend aligning the incentive expiration with the town's housing‑element cycle. Commissioner Pfeffer and others raised procedural concerns about errors in the red‑line exhibit and urged staff to provide accurate, traceable comparisons showing: the pre‑2025 code, the council's urgency ordinance, and the clean 2026 draft the commission would forward to the council. Planning staff agreed to provide corrected red lines and to work with commission members on typographical and citation fixes.
Commissioners also asked staff to explicitly include JADUs in an item exempting ADU construction from triggering fire‑sprinkler requirements for the primary dwelling in most cases; staff agreed to add that language. After additional technical and formatting corrections were requested and a motion to forward the draft with the commission's edits was placed, the commission voted 4–1 to recommend the ordinance to the Town Council and to instruct staff to return with corrected red lines and clarifications prior to first reading.
The Planning Commission's recommendation signals the commission's support for adopting the state‑aligned code with locally requested clarifications and fixes; final adoption remains with the Town Council. Staff and commissioners emphasized the need for clear, accurate red‑line documents so the council and the public can see what the commission is recommending to change from prior versions.
