Community Meeting on Substandard Lot Policy Reforms

On May 4, 2026, the Alexandria Planning and Zoning Department held a community meeting to discuss potential reforms to the city's policies on substandard lots. Staff (Sam Shelley, Katie McDonald, Rachel Dresher) presented the history of special use permit (SUP) requirements for substandard lots, current challenges, and a draft policy proposal to allow by-right development for most substandard lots while retaining the SUP requirement for lots without frontage. Approximately 10 community members attended and provided feedback on the proposals.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Brett expressed support for streamlining the process for lots that are imperceptibly substandard (e.g., 63ft wide vs. required 65ft) but stressed that some review is needed. He noted his personal experience building on a 4,200 sq ft lot that took three years due to the SUP process, despite 80% of neighboring lots being the same size. He argued that a full public hearing is unnecessary for lots that conform to neighborhood character.
• Katherine Restman (East Alexandria Avenue) raised concerns about undefined terms like "block face" leading to arbitrary comparisons. She emphasized that the SUP process provides transparency and allows neighbors to participate, and warned that removing it would eliminate checks and balances. She also noted that a tree on her street was protected due to developer interaction during the SUP process.
• Mike Rodriguez (President of Political City Association) questioned why changes are needed, noting that only 71 SUP cases have come forward in 53 years, indicating the process is not overly burdensome. He asked what is driving the review.
• Duncan advocated for removing minimum lot sizes entirely and favored incremental changes that give property owners more rights. He supported simplifying the process for teardown/rebuild cases to free up staff time for approving apartments. He argued that smaller lots do not necessarily create affordable housing, as recent duplexes in his neighborhood sold for $1.6–$1.8 million each.
• Alicia (neighborhood with R20 zoning but lot sizes under 10,000 sq ft) described how FAR limitations prevent her and neighbors from adding bedrooms. She felt the city should consider rezoning rather than a band-aid fix.
• Eve Anderson (President of Taylor Rencens Association) questioned whether the zoning for housing changes already expanded by-right options for developed substandard lots, and sought clarification on how the new proposal would interact with existing rules.
• Phoebe (Yemen's Northern Virginia) supported the idea of more housing but stressed the need for review to maintain neighborhood character.
• Mary Ellen File and Rosie (not fully identified) expressed general support for the process but emphasized the importance of light, air, and compatibility.

Discussion Items

• History of Substandard Lot Policies: Staff explained that substandard lots are those that do not meet current zoning minimums for lot size, frontage, or width, and were created before those rules were adopted. The SUP requirement began in 1974 for R-zoned districts (R20, R12, R8, R5, R25) after concerns about out-of-scale houses. In 2008, the requirement was extended to developed substandard lots (teardown/rebuild) as part of a broader infill package. Since 1973, 36 vacant substandard lot SUP cases have been processed (28 approved, 8 denied); since 2008, 35 developed substandard lot SUPs have been processed (all approved).
• Staff's Draft Policy Proposal: Staff presented a draft position to retain the SUP requirement for lots without frontage (zero frontage) but to make development of most other substandard lots by-right (no public hearing). The rationale includes: (1) many substandard lots are only marginally deficient (e.g., 63ft frontage vs. 65ft); (2) dimensional rules (FAR, setbacks) already limit building size; (3) post-2008 zoning changes have made infill development more compatible; (4) the SUP process adds cost and uncertainty, which may be passed on to buyers. Staff acknowledged that the definition of "most" needs refinement and that additional research on the exact number and characteristics of substandard lots is ongoing.
• Community Feedback on Proposal: Several attendees expressed concern about removing the SUP entirely. Key concerns included: loss of neighbor notification and input, potential for incompatible designs, and the importance of public oversight for discretionary decisions (e.g., tree preservation, light and air). Staff noted that if development becomes by-right, staff would still enforce zoning rules but could not make discretionary approvals. Some attendees supported retaining a streamlined review process (e.g., administrative approval or BZA hearing) rather than full by-right. Others argued that the current process is not overly burdensome given the low number of cases.
• Lots Without Frontage: Staff clarified that the proposal retains the SUP for lots with zero frontage, as these require council to negotiate access. However, some attendees noted that many townhouse developments use private streets and require SUPs for frontage, which staff acknowledged might be addressed in a separate future effort (e.g., "zoning for housing 2.0").

Key Outcomes

• No decisions were made. The meeting was solely for discussion and input.
• Next Steps: Staff will schedule a second community meeting (likely virtual) for broader input. They will continue the detailed parcel-by-parcel inventory of substandard lots (including research at Arlington County land records). The policy proposal will be refined based on feedback, including clarifying definitions (e.g., block face), considering thresholds for by-right development (e.g., 75% of lot size), and exploring alternative approval pathways (e.g., administrative SUP or BZA). Staff will present the discussion to the Planning Commission on the following Tuesday (May 5, 2026) for feedback. The target public hearing date is before the end of summer 2026. Staff also plans to offer "office hours" for asynchronous input.
• Community concerns noted: The need for neighbor notification, protection of trees and light/air, and clear definitions of compatibility will be incorporated into the ongoing policy refinement.