Template Letter

Written comments can be submitted to the Fairfax County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. When the public hearing is scheduled, specific submission instructions will be published by the county. In the meantime, you can direct comments to:

Fairfax County Department of Planning & Development
Reference: SE-2025-FR-00044
12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 730
Fairfax, VA 22035

For the most direct impact, send your letter by email to the staff and officials involved in this review:

Nicholas Cicero, AICP — Staff Coordinator for SE-2025-FR-00044
nicholas.cicero@fairfaxcounty.gov  |  703-324-1290

Suzanne Wright — Director, Dept. of Planning & Development
suzanne.wright@fairfaxcounty.gov  |  703-324-1290

Barbara Byron — Policy Director, Chairman McKay's Office
Barbara.Byron2@fairfaxcounty.gov  |  703-324-2321 (ask for Barbara Byron)

Christopher Landgraf — Planning Commissioner, Franconia District
plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov  |  703-324-2865

Commissioner Landgraf does not publish a direct email address. The Planning Commission office takes messages and forwards them to the commissioner, so put SE-2025-FR-00044, Franconia District in your subject line. A contact form is also available on the Franconia District Planning Commission page.

Supervisor Rodney L. Lusk — Franconia District Supervisor
Franconia@fairfaxcounty.gov  |  703-971-6262

Supervisor Lusk's office represents Kingstowne, Springfield, Franconia, and Hybla Valley on the Board of Supervisors. Constituent input on land use matters goes directly to his staff. Commissioner Landgraf and Supervisor Lusk are the two district officials who receive the Land Use Committee's recommendation.

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State ZIP]
[Date]

Fairfax County Planning Commission
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors
12055 Government Center Parkway
Fairfax, VA 22035

Re: Special Exception Application SE-2025-FR-00044 — Beulah Street and Steinway Street

I am a resident of the Franconia area and am writing about Special Exception application SE-2025-FR-00044 at 7213 Beulah Street and adjoining parcels. It seeks approval for 76 independent living units, 67 townhome-style and 9 detached-style, on approximately 10.97 acres zoned R-1. The Zoning Ordinance classifies an independent living facility as a Public, Institutional, and Community Use rather than a Residential Use.

I am not opposed to housing for older adults, and neither is the Comprehensive Plan. The Rose Hill plan provides for elderly housing in this planning sector, on identified parcels flanking Manchester Boulevard, and requires at least two points of access to the arterial road system there. This application is on different parcels, and proposes a single driveway. The Zoning Ordinance asks whether the proposed use at the specified location is in harmony with the Plan, and that is where my concern lies.

A Special Exception is not a waiver of the county’s other requirements. Before approving one, the Zoning Ordinance requires the Board to make several findings that stand on their own: that the use at this particular location is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, that it is compatible both with development in the general area and with the neighborhood immediately around it, that the location, size, and height of the buildings will not hinder the appropriate development and use of neighboring property, and that pedestrian and vehicular traffic will not be hazardous. Those findings are separate from the standards that apply to independent living facilities specifically. Satisfying the second set does not satisfy the first.

The Rose Hill Planning District plan recommends these parcels for residential use at 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre, “to be compatible with the existing residential neighborhood to the south.” The proposal is approximately 6.93. The plan also states that areas adjacent to or near Kingstowne and Manchester Lakes are planned for lower densities than those developments themselves. And the Land Use element permits housing for older adults in residential areas only where it is “physically compatible with” the Comprehensive Plan. The neighborhood the plan names is the one to the south: single-family homes on half-acre lots, one and two stories. The Statement of Justification instead compares the proposal to the attached homes to the northeast. I would ask that the compatibility finding be made against the homes the plan names.

The applicant’s own mapping records approximately 7.7 acres of upland forest on the site, and its plan sheets record that 10.3 percent of the county’s tree preservation target would be met and that no forest or open space would remain after development. That land supports deer, foxes, rabbits, squirrels, bats, and birds. The application also seeks relief from the barrier otherwise required along the southern property line.

On pedestrian safety, the Comprehensive Plan provides that access to public transportation and community services for housing for older adults should be within a “reasonable, and safe, walking distance.” The Statement of Justification says the development’s pedestrian network will give residents access to the Kingstowne and Newington commercial areas, but everything the applicant commits to building is on the site itself or along its own frontage. The record contains no assessment of the sidewalks in the surrounding neighborhoods and no analysis of where residents would cross Beulah Street, a five-lane arterial posted at 35 miles per hour. At Steinway Street, Beulah Street traffic does not stop and there is no marked crosswalk; the nearest is at Kingstowne Commons Drive.

This application is also not finished. Six of the county’s nine review disciplines returned comments on the June 16 submission, and a further revision was requested on July 20, 2026.

For these reasons, I do not believe the record as it stands supports the findings the Zoning Ordinance requires. It does not establish harmony with a Comprehensive Plan that recommends one to two dwelling units per acre at this location. It does not establish compatibility with the neighborhood the plan names, because the comparison the applicant offers is to a different one. It does not address whether buildings of this size and height will hinder the appropriate development and use of the adjoining properties. And it contains no analysis of the pedestrian network off the site, on which any finding about hazardous pedestrian traffic depends. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors consider carefully whether these findings can be made on this record. They are requirements the ordinance applies to every special exception, and they apply whether or not the standards specific to independent living facilities are satisfied.

If the application proceeds in some form, three changes would go a substantial way toward the harmony and compatibility findings the ordinance requires. Density should be reduced to no more than 4 dwelling units per acre, and building height capped at 35 feet and three stories. Both are needed for the development to sit compatibly alongside the homes adjoining it and the density the Comprehensive Plan recommends for these parcels. And the following should be written into the development conditions rather than left to site plan review: the screening and barrier required along the southern property line without modification, retention of a materially greater share of the existing tree canopy along the boundaries adjoining existing homes, and limits on construction hours, duration, and truck routing.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]

Additional Actions

Writing a letter is one of the most impactful things you can do. You can also add your name in support of responsible development, document local wildlife sightings, and share this website with neighbors who may not yet be aware of the proposal.