blank line
The plan keeps changing. The question at every presentation does not. Here are the options, what each one costs, and an answer Reston can write before the next plan arrives.
Links to all cited sources can be found at the end.
Every presentation on Reston National Golf Course this fall has closed the same way: what does the community want? The owners have asked it at the clubhouse and at the Reston Chamber, and it will be asked again before the Planning Commission hearing on November 4th.
It is a fair question. Before answering it, it helps to lay out what the public record shows: how the plan has changed, which route it is taking through the County, what is still contested, and what each possible outcome costs and delivers.
The plan has had four versions in twenty months, and none of what has been offered is recorded. The answer to “what do you want?” is simple: put it in the deed before the vote.
The plan has changed – and none of it is recorded
The first version came in February 2025, as a request to change Fairfax County’s Comprehensive Plan: about 86 acres of housing on the western half of the course and about 80 acres of public park on the eastern half. The golf course would end. At the Planning Commission that May, the nominator’s attorney described roughly 10 homes per acre on about 85 acres, in the range of 800 to 850 homes.
The same February 2025 filing stated that the owner “has initiated a by-right PRC Plan to modernize the golf course and develop 288 stacked townhomes.” That is the second version.
When the PRC plan was filed in 2026, it showed 306 condominium units: 288 market-rate plus 18 affordable. That is the third version.
The plan presented this month is back to 288 homes: 260 market-rate and 28 affordable.
The golf work has grown too. The 2025 filing described rerouting 9 holes. The 2026 filing describes reconfiguring up to 12.
Four Versions of One Plan
What has been filed or presented since February 2025.
| Version | Date | Homes | Golf |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plan amendment nomination | Feb 2025 | ~86 acres of housing (no count filed) | Ends; ~80 acres of park (see above photo) |
| PRC plan, as first described | Feb 2025 | 288 | 9 holes rerouted |
| PRC plan, as filed | 2026 | 306 (288 + 18 affordable) | Up to 12 holes reconfigured |
| Current presentation | Oct 2026 | 288 (260 + 28 affordable) | Up to 12 holes reconfigured |
| Four versions in twenty months. None recorded. | |||
Sources: CPN-2025-III-HM-028 Statement of Justification, Feb 12, 2025; PRC Plan Statements of Justification, Mar 2 and Aug 24, 2026; October 2026 presentation.
Changes presented in meetings are not commitments. Only what is recorded binds the next owner.
Two routes were filed at the same time
Fairfax County has a standard order for changing what can be built on planned land. First the Comprehensive Plan changes, then the development plan, then the PRC plan that implements it. In 2012, the County’s zoning administrator applied that order to this course. The full record is in Governed Growth. What I Filed With Fairfax County.
The 2025 nomination was the front door, the plan amendment. County staff recommended against studying it because the course is outside the boundary of the transit zone and the Comprehensive Plan says it is “to remain as a golf course.” The Planning Commission recommended studying it anyway, at the lowest priority. On June 10, 2025, the Board of Supervisors declined to add it to the work program.
The PRC plan is the side door, and it was filed alongside the front door, not after it.
The Doors
Two routes to the same land, and what each one reviews.
| Plan Amendment – Then Rezoning | PRC Plan | |
|---|---|---|
| What it asks | Should this land be used differently? | Does this drawing conform to what was approved? |
| Public process | Staff study, community engagement, hearings | Staff review, then hearings |
| Schools, roads, parks contributions | Negotiated | Limited to development conditions (the current draft includes sidewalks and a bus shelter) |
| Where this plan is | Not added to the work plan, June 2025 | Pending; hearing November 4 |
| The front door (Plan Amendment) is where a community negotiates. The side door (PRC Plan) asks only whether the drawing matches. | ||
Sources: Governed Growth record; FFXnow, June 11, 2025; Fairfax County PLUS.
A rezoning is where a community negotiates schools, roads, parks and membership. A PRC plan asks a narrower question: does this match what was approved in the last zoning?
14 acres are contested ground
The 288 homes would sit on about 14.8 acres that the applicant says still carry a 1966 approval, rezoning B-555, for medium-density housing. The applicant’s 2026 filing says the 1971 approvals “did not amend the RZ B-555 approval or its development plan.”
The County’s 1970 records read differently. The development plan for rezoning C-135, dated April 14, 1970, is titled “Development Plan Being a Revision to a Portion of the Preliminary Plan Approved Date: 9-21-66.” September 21, 1966 is the date B-555 was approved. The plan covers 45.11 acres of that 1966 land, and the County’s received copy carries the notation “Development Plan Amending Preliminary Plan for B-555. Boards copy.” On the land-use sheet, the golf course is labeled “Permanent Open Space.”
The applicant’s own 2025 presentation to the Planning Commission listed C-135 as having “Amended PRC Plan for 45 acres of RZ B-555.”
Those same 1970 and 1971 plans set the homes for the area at 1,123. About 1,137 were built.
 C-135 land uses, April 14, 1970. Click to enlarge. |
C-135 Land Uses with Unit Counts (County Sheet 3 of 5)
The golf course is labeled “Permanent Open Space,” with apartments and townhomes planned around it, including the 300 apartments built as Southgate. |
 C-281 south course, April 1971. Click to enlarge. |
C-281, South Course (County Sheet 3 of 5)
“South Golf Course Permanent Open Space,” with the townhomes and apartments along South Lakes Drive. |
 C-135 boundary survey, April 14, 1970. Click to enlarge. |
C-135 Boundary Survey (County Sheet 1 of 5)
The 45.11-acre “4th Addition” (B-555) shown as an area of revision, with the notation “Development Plan Amending Preliminary Plan for B-555. Boards copy.” |
Source: Fairfax County Public Library, Archives and Records Management, certified copies.
The applicant’s 2026 plat traces the same boundary line as the 1966 B-555 description and the eastern edge of the 45 acres the County’s 1970 C-135 plan revised. By that line, the north land bay falls inside the revised area and the south land bay falls outside it. What that means for the 1966 approval is a legal question for the County.
The rest of the course is protected, but not permanently
The 1971 development plans label the course permanent open space, and the Comprehensive Plan names it by tax map to remain golf. Building on the rest of the course would take a plan amendment and a rezoning, the full process.
That protection lasts only until a future Board approves a plan amendment, which is exactly what was nominated in 2025. The eastern arm, about 36 acres east of Soapstone Drive, is not part of this application at all.
Start with the contract. When two parties disagree, I always start in the same place: “What’s in the contract?” Sometimes that leads to “What’s in the deed?”, the covenants that govern how the land can be used. That’s where we are with the review of this proposal.
Three paths – Each Costs and Benefits Someone
There are three realistic outcomes. Each one has costs, and each one offers something to someone.
Three Paths for Reston National
The same questions, asked of each outcome.
| A: PRC plan approved | B: PRC plan denied | C: Plan amendment returns | |
|---|---|---|---|
| New homes | 288 on ~14.8 acres | None now | Anticipated ~800–850 on ~86 acres (as described in 2025) |
| Building height | 4-story stacked homes next to 2–3 story homes | No change | Not specified; anticipated 3 to 4 stories |
| Golf | Continues on 18 holes, up to 12 reconfigured; lighted range added | Continues as is | Ends |
| Public park | None | None | ~80 acres offered, not deed committed |
| RA membership for new homes | Not in the draft conditions; the owner can agree to it and record it before approval | Not applicable | Can be committed through proffers |
| Schools, roads, parks contributions | Limited to development conditions; the draft includes sidewalks, a bus shelter and green building standards | Not applicable | Negotiated through proffers |
| Rest of the course | Protected by plan and zoning, not deed recorded – could be negotiated as terms and conditions | Same | Depends on the terms and conditions |
| Homes on and facing the course | Impact concentrated on homes facing the two land bays: 10–15%, up to about $95,000 per home | No change | Golf-view premium disappears across the course; effect next to a park unstudied |
| South Lakes High School golf team | Keeps its home course | Keeps its home course | Loses its home course |
| Hidden Creek | Sets a precedent for the PRC plan route, golf course can be upzoned | A ruling could set a precedent for planned communities | Sets a precedent for upzoning golf to housing |
| Value created by the up-zone | Goes to the owner – depends on terms and conditions | None | Goes to the owner unless captured through proffers |
| Every path costs someone something. Only one path lets the community negotiate the trade. | |||
Sources: Fairfax County PLUS filings; Planning Commission record, May 15 and June 4, 2025; Who Pays and Who Profits.
Path B may not end things either. In May 2025, the owner’s attorney told the Planning Commission the PRC plan “may be the test case” on the County’s authority. Litigation puts more than one course at stake:
- A precedent for planned communities. A ruling that a 60-year-old approval outranks a later development plan would reach any planned community with old, unbuilt approvals under its open space, and give every owner a reason to go looking for one.
- A Comprehensive Plan with no teeth. If a PRC plan can proceed against a plan that names the course “to remain as golf courses,” the plan becomes advisory with no teeth.
The full precedent analysis is in One Reston Golf Course. Five Precedents. The value analysis behind the 10–15% figure is in Who Pays and Who Profits.
What to ask for in writing
Whichever path Reston ends up on, these are the terms worth asking for.
If golf continues:
- A recorded restriction on the entire remaining course, eastern arm included, limiting the land to golf or open space.
- Binding on every future owner and enforced by a named third party.
- Recorded before the vote, not offered after it.
- Any release goes back through the full plan amendment process, with no side door.
If golf ends:
- A conservation easement on the natural land: the floodplain and stream buffers.
- A recorded park dedication for the active areas, with a named owner.
- A maintenance endowment funded from the value the up-zone creates, so current residents don’t carry the cost.
- Every new home joins Reston Association.
- All of it recorded before approval.
None of this asks the owners to give up value for nothing. It asks that whatever is traded be written into the deed.
WHAT THIS MEANS
For homeowners on and near the course: the value question rides on height as much as on the number of homes. The proposed buildings are compared to existing homes by square footage. Similar square footage is not similar height.
For South Lakes families: under two of the three paths, the high school keeps its home golf course. Under the third, it does not.
For Reston Association members: new homes inside Reston that don’t join RA add use without adding dues. Membership is not in the current draft conditions. The owner can agree to it, and it should be recorded before the vote.
For the Board of Supervisors: the 1970 C-135 plan and the applicant’s own filings disagree about what governs the 14 acres. That should be settled before any vote.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
The Reston Planning & Zoning Committee takes up the case Monday, October 19th, 2026. The Planning Commission hearing is Wednesday, November 4th, 2026, 7:30 p.m., Government Center, 12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax.
- Ask the County the one question (which approval governs each land bay today, the 1966 B-555 plan or the 1970 C-135 plan?): Weixuan Yang, staff coordinator
- Sign up to speak at the Planning Commission: Fairfax County Planning Commission
- Ask for it in writing. Whatever is offered, ask that it be recorded before the vote.
Whatever plan comes next, the answer to “what do you want?” is already written.
Take Action
Add your name to the submission to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Michele Hudnall
Real Estate of Northern Virginia | Equity-First Real Estate Strategy
Life Long Northern Virginia Native | 25-Year Reston Resident | HOA Board President, Whitney Park East | South Lakes Drive
[email protected] | 703.867.3436 | RealEstateofNVA.com | @realestateofnva
I help Northern Virginia buyers and sellers make smarter decisions with local market analysis, strategic guidance, and real-world context, not hype headlines.
Disclosure: Michele Hudnall is a licensed real estate agent in Virginia. This post represents her personal analysis and good-faith opinion as a Reston resident and does not constitute legal or financial advice. Full disclosure at RealEstateofNVA.com. All analysis and opinion are my own and based upon local, real-time data. Please consult with a financial or legal professional as required.
Privacy Statement | Disclosure Notice
SOURCES
SOURCES: All Publicly Accessible — No Subscription Required
Fairfax County, CPN-2025-III-HM-028 nomination and Statement of Justification, Feb 12, 2025: fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/plus — The plan amendment nomination, the 288-home PRC plan already initiated, and 9 holes rerouted.
Fairfax County, RZPA-2025-HM-00034, RZPA-2026-HM-00007, RZPA-2026-HM-00008, Statement of Justification, Mar 2, 2026; Certified Plat ZP-2235-3 and legal description, Mar 16, 2026: fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/plus — “Did not amend” B-555, 306 units, up to 12 holes, and the two land bays’ boundaries.
Fairfax County, PRC Plan revisions, Aug 24, 2026: Statement of Justification, layout revision memo and draft development conditions: fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/plus — 288 homes (260 + 28 affordable), the revised layout, and what the draft conditions include.
Fairfax County Planning Commission, SSPA workshop May 15, 2025, and work program markup June 4, 2025: fairfaxcounty.gov/planningcommission — 10 homes per acre on 85 acres, “test case,” the C-135 slide, and the Tier 3 recommendation.
FFXnow, June 11, 2025: ffxnow.com — The Board of Supervisors declined to add the nomination to the work program.
FFXnow, Apr 3, 2025: ffxnow.com — Both routes filed at the same time.
RZ B-555 boundary description and Land Use & Density Plan, July 1966 (Fairfax County Public Library Archives): source booklet, Section 3 — The original B-555 boundary line the 2026 plat traces.
C-135 Development Plan, Sheets 1 and 3, Apr 14, 1970 (Fairfax County Public Library Archives): certified copy — 45.11 acres revised, the B-555 amendment notation, permanent open space, and unit counts.
C-281 Development Plan, Sheet 3, Apr 1971 (Fairfax County Public Library Archives): certified copy — South golf course as permanent open space.
Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, Reston: fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/comprehensive-plan — The course “to remain as golf courses.”
Governed Growth. What I Filed With Fairfax County.: realestateofnva.com — Full zoning citations and the 2012 determination.
One Reston Golf Course. Five Precedents.: realestateofnva.com — Precedent analysis.
Who Pays and Who Profits: realestateofnva.com — Home value analysis behind the 10–15% figure.
Reston National Golf Series: realestateofnva.com
SOURCED DOCUMENTS
VIEW / DOWNLOAD / PRINT
