Bottom line: The Board of Supervisors’ Land Use Policy Committee received the staff proposal on July 7. It was an informational briefing — no vote was taken, and the Committee gave staff no direction to change any recommendation. Staff stressed that the proposal is still in the outreach phase, with two virtual community meetings ahead (July 15 and July 20) and authorization and public hearings targeted for the end of 2026. Nothing is decided, and the window to shape this remains open.

Below is how each concern from our letter to the committee fared in the room.

• 1. Survey reliability. Partially acknowledged. From the dais it was conceded that some communities feel the survey “wasn’t done in a way that they think is scientific,” with a call for better, more targeted, more representative outreach — including a suggestion that HOAs and civic associations run their own sample surveys, which historically draw higher response rates. Close to our point but framed as a reason for more outreach rather than to discount the existing survey’s findings. Staff revised nothing.
• 2. Owner-occupancy. Discussed, trending against us. This drew real attention — the military-deployment scenario was cited as a reason removal appeals to some members, and a sympathetic case was raised (families buying homes for adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities, where owner-occupancy can be a barrier). Staff agreed to research how neighboring jurisdictions handle owner-occupancy and report back. Our accountability argument — 65% of survey respondents wanted it kept — was not the frame that carried the discussion. This one needs our continued attention.
• 3. Parking and townhouses. Where our position has the most traction. Skepticism about extending ALUs to townhouses was widespread — HOA parking complications, units that can’t legally prove exclusive parking, garages used for storage, and enforcement headaches were all raised. Staff confirmed it is not recommending townhouse ALUs; that provision remains an option only, included “for awareness.” A transit-oriented angle (townhomes near Metro) was floated as the one scenario worth further conversation. Our position aligns with where the Committee already leans. On removing the extra parking space for detached ALUs, staff still recommends removal, and that drew no pushback.
• 4. Septic and sanitary sewer infrastructure. Staff answered a narrower question than the one we raised — our concern remains unaddressed. Asked whether sewer-vs-septic status matters, staff replied that it does not: for a septic property, adding a bedroom is what triggers Health Department review, ALU or not, so those reviews are already routed. But that answer is about one property’s plan review at permit time — whether a single system can handle a single project. It does not reach our concern, which is cumulative. We raised the aggregate load that widespread ALU adoption places on shared infrastructure. On sanitary sewer, many ALU connections — each individually too small to trigger downstream capacity review — together add wastewater flow to collection basins, trunk lines, and pump stations that no single bedroom-addition review ever evaluates. On private septic, a system sized for one household now serves a second independent unit with added occupants and flow — a capacity question the “did you add a bedroom” test never asks — and staff’s draft actually deletes the standing well/septic approval standard, while an ALU created without a new bedroom (a trade-permit-only conversion) would receive no Health Department review at all. No sewer basin capacity analysis was presented or requested. Our infrastructure concern stands, and the community meetings are where we press it.
• 5. Schools. Not raised. Student generation and school capacity did not come up. Our standalone point stands unaddressed, and remains available for us to raise directly at the community meetings.
• 6. Minimum lot size for detached ALUs. Moving toward more permissive, with strong support. Clear enthusiasm for reducing the two-acre minimum (only 4.7% of county lots qualify today), with the proposed 15,000 sq ft tier welcomed and openness to going further. One useful, winnable ask surfaced: translate the square-footage tiers into acreage (“plain English”) so residents understand what a 10,500 or 15,000 sq ft threshold means for neighborhoods like ours. Worth echoing.
• 7. State law (SB 531) and HOA authority. Confirmed in our favor. Staff stated plainly that the state ADU legislation does not apply to Fairfax (though it informs the discussion). Separately, staff and members confirmed the County cannot override HOA restrictions on ALUs and will not enforce them — the white paper’s HOA/short-term-lodging section was cited approvingly. Both points track what our letter argued.

What This Means For the community

The proposal is advancing, but it is not locked. The tone in the room was “listen broadly, then decide” — one member explicitly noted the Board may ultimately agree or disagree with community input, but intends to hear it. Sustained, specific comment from residents can still shape the outcome.

CFGF's concerns are landing unevenly. Townhouses and the extra-parking issue align with where the Committee already leans, and the SB 531 and HOA points were confirmed. Owner-occupancy is moving against us and needs a sharper follow-up. Septic and sewer capacity was sidestepped, not answered — staff addressed permit-time plan review, not cumulative system load, so our engineering case is fully intact. Schools remain entirely unaddressed — a concern we have yet to place before the County.

What You Can Do Now

The next real opportunities are the two virtual community meetings hosted by County staff, described as among the last chances to comment before recommendations are finalized:

ALU Community Meeting — Wednesday, July 15, 2026, 12:00 p.m.
Virtual (MS Teams): Join the meeting
Meeting ID: 263 567 861 190 84  ·  Passcode: be7zz3ce
Call-in: 571-429-5982  ·  Conference ID: 951 331 842#

ALU Community Meeting — Monday, July 20, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
Virtual (MS Teams): Join the meeting
Meeting ID: 249 370 555 574 05  ·  Passcode: mZ7WX9Zv
Call-in: 571-429-5982  ·  Conference ID: 533 588 836#

The County is also standing up a community-engagement portal and a discussion toolkit that HOAs and civic associations can use to run their own structured feedback sessions. If your HOA or neighborhood group wants to host a discussion, this is the moment — that association-level input was explicitly invited and tends to carry weight.

CFGF has submitted formal letters to both the Board committee and the Planning Commission committee, copied to County staff, and will continue to press these points — particularly infrastructure capacity and owner-occupancy — through the community meetings and toward the end-of-year hearings.

We want to hear from you. Please send us your comments by return email at citizensforgreatfalls@gmail.com. Your input helps shape the positions we bring to the County on your behalf.