Fairfax County planning staff, applicant outline plan to allow nine homes on Church of the Good Shepherd parcel; neighbors press stormwater and tree‑loss risks

Fairfax County planning staff and the applicant presented a proposed comprehensive‑plan amendment that would permit development of up to nine single‑family homes on a parcel removed from the Church of the Good Shepherd site, prompting neighbors to press for tree‑preservation details, stormwater controls and school and traffic impacts.

Michael Weng of the Department of Planning and Development opened the session and reviewed the proposal and agency comments, saying the county has preliminarily determined the proposed density fits the corridor and that detailed protections would be developed at rezoning. "Your voice is very important in this process," Braddock District Supervisor Rachna Sizemore Heizer said in opening remarks.

The applicant's revised concept proposes nine homes accessed from the church property, retention of a 35‑foot buffer on the north side and a 50‑foot conservation easement. County staff said Fairfax Water and sanitary sewer capacity exist for the change but the site currently lacks stormwater management facilities, and environmental reviewers noted local sump conditions and clay soils that may require mitigation during construction.

The county summarized likely mitigation and planning conditions that could accompany the amendment: retention of existing conservation easements, establishment of tree‑preservation areas and planted buffers along Holly Lane, provision of sidewalks and pedestrian/bike facilities, and shared access with the Church of the Good Shepherd entrance on Ollie Lane. Staff said stormwater facilities would be expected at rezoning and that interim erosion and sediment controls would be required before land clearing.

Neighbors pressed for specifics. "I appreciate all of the work that was done... We live on the North side of this property," said a resident who identified herself as Sukhon, asking what percentage of mature trees would be removed. A neighbor later estimated, "about 75% of the trees would have to be removed for construction," and warned of microclimate and drainage effects.

Kathy Taylor of Walsh Kluge, representing the nominator, said detailed tree inventories and proffers that identify which trees are preserved or removed are standard parts of the rezoning package. John Morris of the church noted the church has an existing bio‑retention pond adjacent to the new parcel and said prior mitigation had been approved by the Board of Supervisors.

On stormwater, Commissioner Cortina reminded the group that the legal minimum is not to "make it worse," and asked whether the applicant intends to improve downstream conditions. Andrew Rosenberger of Madison Homes said the applicant conducted a field review and that the site's surface flow into the local inlet is limited; he added the design intent is to reduce post‑construction flows into the downstream system. County engineers said an overland relief analysis and design for the 100‑year event will be submitted with the rezoning materials.

Staff also summarized secondary impacts: FCPS estimated existing R‑1 zoning would generate about two students and the proposed amendment would add about five more students (two high‑school, one middle, two elementary); transportation review estimated roughly 70 additional daily trips with modest AM/PM peak increases. Housing staff noted the contract purchaser expressed interest in a contribution to the Housing Trust Fund, with an initial estimate of about $60,000.

Officials emphasized that many technical details — tree preservation plans, elevations, stormwater design and exact zoning entitlement (PDH‑3 is the likely option) — are produced during the rezoning stage. Staff said a public staff report will be issued, a follow‑up community meeting is tentatively scheduled for June 29, and public hearings are set for July 15 and the Board of Supervisors on August 25.

Community members and church representatives thanked staff for the outreach; county staff provided a contact for follow‑up questions (michael.weng@fairfaxcounty.gov). The meeting closed with no formal votes or motions.