Looser parking requirements could encourage more gyms and shops to fill Arlington’s commercial real estate vacancies, the county believes.
The Arlington County Board on Saturday unanimously voted to have staff research possible changes to the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance and advertise requests to amend it. In addition to slashing parking minimums for gyms, the county is considering whether to allow parking lots to designate more spaces for compact cars.
Public hearings about these requirements are scheduled to take place in April. The county argues some of the regulations — set decades ago — may be outdated and an aggravating factor for Arlington’s rising commercial vacancy rate.
For instance, Arlington fitness centers must offer five times more parking spaces per square foot of floor area than other retail or service businesses. This is more restrictive than requirements in Alexandria and Fairfax County and, according to a report, a holdover of transportation patterns from the 1960s.
“The minimum parking ratio for athletic and health clubs is a standard set decades ago and does not reflect current land use and development patterns, public transportation access or regulations in Arlington,” the report says.
County staff noted that many potential office tenants look for nearby fitness facilities when selecting a location. Fitness centers also tend to attract establishments such as spas and physical therapy centers.
“Minimum parking ratios… can derail an athletic or health club from filling high demand, ideally located vacant space,” the report says.
The document also argues that the county should reconsider a 2002 regulation that disallows compact car spaces in areas “that were assumed to have a high turnover.” This includes retail stores, grocery stores and medical and health care facilities, as well as anywhere “where there is likely to be a large number of elderly [people].”
“Staff believes this prohibition is worth reexamining,” the report says.
Finally, another county report argues that loosening off-street parking requirements could help some shopping centers and small commercial sites attract new tenants. It notes that current parking regulations, as well as insufficient shared parking within commercial and mixed-use districts, can create barriers for businesses.
“This is especially true when multiple businesses are required to use the available parking on-site with limited capacity,” the document says. “Expanded shared parking regulations can be an effective measure to help address similar on-site parking deficiencies.”
All of these initiatives are part of a larger effort to combat Arlington’s high commercial vacancy rate. In another bid to boost Arlington’s commercial resiliency, the Board authorized public hearings for April about whether to loosen restrictions on large media screens in outdoor areas.
Later this year, the Board is expected to discuss guidance on office-to-apartment conversions as well as potentially simplifying the major and minor site plan amendment process, which landowners must navigate when repurposing or renovating large development projects.
Within the next several months, Board members are also expected to consider plans to facilitate changes of use within existing buildings and adopt a more flexible ordinance around signage.
Other possible ordinance changes concern storage uses at office buildings as well as the process for repurposing underutilized parking spaces.
(Updated at 12:35 p.m.) Even in the era of Missing Middle, some duplex projects in Arlington have to go to the Arlington County Board for approval.
A proposal to build two side-by-side homes for sale at 1129 N. Utah Street, a few blocks from the Ballston Metro station and Washington-Liberty High School, is one such project.
Although the 2-story, single-family home set for demolition is in a “townhouse district,” only a single-family home can be built by right. McLean-based developer BeaconCrest Homes must go through the county’s longer, more intensive review process — typically reserved for larger-scale projects — to obtain approval for its proposed semi-detached home. It will have two 4-bedroom, 4.5-bath homes, each 2,600 square feet, with private outdoor spaces and 2-car garages.
“Given the property’s location and immediate surrounding uses, we felt it deserved to be more than a single dwelling and chose to pursue the 2-unit, semi-detached route,” said BeaconCrest representative Derek Huetinck. “Wrapping up, we continue to believe that the project before the Planning Commission is a better fit for the neighborhood, and more closely aligned with the county’s housing needs than the by-right option.”
It is a quirk that may come down to how the neighborhood and county zoning codes developed.
The brick home at 1129 N. Utah Street was built in 1948. While the first mention of “townhouse dwelling districts” appears to be Arlington’s 1969 Zoning Ordinance, it was not until the 2002 ordinance that the designation “R15-30T” — the type of townhouse dwelling district this home finds itself in — entered the code.
The 2002 code says this new district responds to the need for more transit-oriented development. Still, the code requires site plan approval by the County Board for 2-unit semi-detached homes and 3-unit townhouses, meaning these was never a by-right option, though the district’s name suggests a preference for this housing.
Today, several townhouses, along with some 3-story apartment buildings, line N. Utah Street, except for the “hold out” property in question, as Planning Commissioner Daniel Weir described it last week.
Now that property owners can build 2-6 unit homes by right in what were once single-family-home-only districts, the added hoops in a townhouse district — unchanged by the Missing Middle ordinance — prompted staff and the Planning Commission to give the N. Utah Street project an abridged process, with targeted outreach to immediate neighbors and more informal meetings.
The developer worked with neighbors who had critiques regarding the façade, which BeaconCrest worked to address, per a county report. Only one person, the president of the Ballston-Virginia Square Civic Association, expressed concerns about the shortened process.
Last week, Planning Commissioner Jim Lantelme lobbied for zoning code revisions to streamline this process even more.
“The process really is not the way to go for small projects. It just unnecessarily adds a lot of expense for both delay and money,” he said, asking county staff what the commission and county can do to make this process more efficient.
He recommended that the Planning Commission Chair and Vice-Chair voice support for tasking staff with streamlining the process for these districts. That discussion should take place, he said, during an upcoming work session when the Board, Planning Commissioners and the county’s planning division meet to discuss priorities for this year.
“It’s time,” he said. “I mean, we need housing.”
County planner Matt Pfeiffer said it is possible that denser residential districts as a whole will be revisited at as part of a planned Multifamily Reinvestment Study, “when and if that comes forward.”
“That’s something that we can take back and think about some more,” he said.
Addressing BeaconCrest, Lantelme said: “I’m glad you’re doing this but you shouldn’t have had to go through this. The expense just is not worth what you could if if you built the same thing in a [low-density] district… by right. And that just doesn’t make any sense to me.”
Arlington’s Board of Zoning Appeals has rejected a neighbor’s attempt to stop two proposed Expanded Housing Option developments in the Alcova Heights neighborhood.
An affiliate of local homebuilder Classic Cottages proposes building two side-by-side six-plexes at 4015 and 4019 7th Street S., bordering Alcova Heights Park and a couple of blocks north of Columbia Pike.
A neighbor fought back, filing an appeal with the BZA, which takes up appeals to any decisions or determinations made by the county’s Zoning Administrator.
Normally, residents go to the BZA to appeal decisions related to plans to build additions or add front porches; this appears to be one of the first appeals related to new Missing Middle developments.
In February 2023, before the Missing Middle ordinances were approved, Classic Cottages submitted a request to re-subdivide two properties in a “pipestem” configuration, where the boundaries of one property form a “pipe” around the other. After the Missing Middle or Expanded Housing Option (EHO) ordinances went into effect in July, Classic Cottages submitted permits to replace the current single-family home and circular driveway spread across the two lots with a pair of 6-plexes.
“Pipestem” lots are a rarity now because many years ago, they were so hated by the community that the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee got the county zoning ordinance amended to make pipe-stem developments more difficult, says Barnes Lawson, the attorney for Classic Cottages.
“The reason is that you had problems with driveways. You had houses behind houses. It was just not the ideal way in which to provide housing for our community,” he said.
In her appeal, neighbor Kelley Reed argued that the permits were illegally issued. She contends the lots, created via subdivision, did not yet exist in county land records when the permits were issued. Also, she said, they do not conform with the 60-feet minimum width required for EHO developments and the EHOs would have to be put on portions of the lot that cannot be built on.
“This is not a pro- or anti-EHO case,” said Reed. “This case has ramifications far beyond EHO and regardless of use, as this case is about getting the math right. It’s about following the rules. It’s about not cherry-picking definitions. Please correct the staffs’ errors and reject the wrongly approved permits.”
Several neighbors joined the chorus, dwelling less on the math and more on how the project does not fit with the surrounding houses and would hurt the neighborhood.
Jamshid Kooros, who identified himself as a Missing Middle supporter, argued that building multifamily buildings on narrow, deep lots would make this project “the poster child of those who oppose the changes.” That has already come to pass, however, as the project figured into a recent presentation by Arlingtonians for Our Sustainable Future, a local group that has argued against the policy changes.
Others, including the president of Classic Cottages, came to its defense, arguing that residents are hijacking the purpose of BZA appeals to relitigate Missing Middle.
“In all the years we’ve been doing this — building houses all over the county — it never occurred to me that adjacent property owners could file BZA cases against one of our projects. It’s never happened before,” David Tracy, the president of Classic Cottages said. “This particular case seems to be more about the EHO policy itself and I would respectfully ask that, to the extent that it is the policy that’s being challenged, that there’s a proper venue — a larger court case that’s being handled right now.”
Several measures designed to combat Arlington’s persistently high office vacancy rate are slated for discussion next month.
On the table are expanded opportunities for shared and offsite parking, as well as more lenient parking requirements for fitness centers. Officials are also set to consider whether to allow large media screens for outdoor entertainment in some business districts.
The Arlington County Board is scheduled to vote next month on whether to advertise requests to amend Arlington’s zoning ordinance to make these changes. County Manager Mark Schwartz told the Board last week he hopes that these and other ordinance changes can make it easier for Arlington businesses to get started and grow.
“Very often you’ll have a business that, if it could take advantage of parking very near to it, would be able to move ahead,” he said on Tuesday.
Schwartz noted that fitness centers have particularly strict parking requirements.
Large media screens, meanwhile, could assist with “placemaking” in certain commercial business districts. Currently, it’s an exceptionally arduous process to get large outdoor displays approved.
The county also plans to pursue bigger-picture ordinance changes, Schwartz said. Later this year, the Board is expected to discuss guidance on office-to-apartment conversions as well as potentially simplifying the major and minor site plan amendment process, which landowners must navigate when repurposing or renovating large development projects.
Within the next six months, Board members are also expected to consider plans to facilitate change of use within existing buildings and adopt a more flexible ordinance around signage.
Other possible ordinance changes concern storage uses at office buildings as well as the process for converting underutilized parking spaces.
“We promised we’d be coming to you with sort of a regular rhythm of items, and starting next month we will do that,” Schwartz told officials.
Arlington’s office vacancy rate is currently just over 22%, the county manager said — up from 21.5% in October. Arlington Economic Development predicted in October that this number would continue to rise, as about a quarter of Arlington office space is at risk of sustained vacancies.
The county has scrambled to find uses for its office buildings since the pandemic, passing several zoning changes on a compressed community engagement timeline. Recent adjustments allow urban farms, breweries and podcast studios to move into older office buildings without seeking special permissions.
Despite these efforts, a shrinking commercial base has left Arlington residents shouldering a growing portion of the county’s budget. Historically, the commercial and residential tax base split the budget 50-50 but in recent years, this has shifted to a 55-45 split.
Board member Matt de Ferranti last week called office vacancies “a huge challenge” and praised ongoing efforts by county staff.
“I think it is important to reiterate strong support for the direction we are going in,” he said.
Photo via Google Maps
It won’t ever beat “All I Want for Christmas is You” on the charts but a new Arlington-specific Christmas song is out, recorded by the group that was on the opposition side of several land-use flashpoints this year.
Arlingtonians for Our Sustainable Future, a neighborhood group that has advocated against everything from Missing Middle to a new planning document for Langston Blvd, dropped an alternative “12 Days of Christmas” this week.
It mocks the policy changes and projects Arlington County undertook this year — the same policies for which other local groups spent the past couple of years advocating.
The short song, brought to you by the same people who brought tombstones for the “Arlington Way” to the final Missing Middle hearing, reiterates criticism ASF raised regarding heights, environmental impacts, governance or displacement and other predicted outcomes of growth.
And the kicker? A tribute to the paused second phase of Amazon’s second headquarters in Pentagon City: PenPlace, best known for the proposed marquee glassy double-helix building.
The lyrics are below.
On the 12th day of Christmas, my true love gave to me:
12 story towers,
11 displaced tenants,
10 YIMBYs leaping,
Nine acres bulldozed,
Eight vacant buildings,
Seven cars a-swimming,
Six-plex a-zoning,
Five special GLUPs.
Four homeless birds,
Three lawsuits,
Two lame ducks,
and a PenPlace that never will be.
While this take on the “12 Days of Christmas” had a sardonic edge, the proverbial 10 YIMBYs leaping do see this year as one to celebrate, kicking off with the ratification of Arlington’s Missing Middle policies.
In late 2023, YIMBYs of Northern Virginia saw the fruits of their advocacy in the passage of similar zoning ordinances in Alexandria. In between, organization members were busy responding to engagement opportunities on development projects moving through Arlington County approval processes.
“We are proud to have joined with a diverse set of community advocates to end exclusionary zoning in Arlington and Alexandria, reduce burdensome parking mandates in Fairfax County, support new market-rate and committed affordable apartment buildings, and elect forward-looking leaders across the region who prioritize making their jurisdiction a more inclusive, sustainable, and affordable place to live,” the group said in a statement.
The group invited anyone who shares its “Yes in My Backyard” values to celebrate the New Year on Jan. 14, 2024 from 5-7 p.m. at Makers Union pub in Pentagon City.
JBG Smith is asking Arlington County to relieve it of restrictions that it says present serious obstacles to putting up new rooftop signs.
The real estate company is specifically asking the county to remove language restricting the number and size of signs allowed on two office buildings in the Crystal Park development it owns in Crystal City. The proposal is set to go before the County Board this Saturday.
Not everyone is comfortable with the language change, however. Two area civic associations told the county that the restrictions should stay, fearing this would pave the way for more signs going forward.
Currently, Crystal Park offices are governed by a document that “ties certain approved signs to specific tenants, some of which no longer occupy the premises, limits installation of rooftop signs to a single, prescribed rooftop sign and contains outdated requirements for approved signs,” land-use attorney Kedrick Whitmore wrote in an application to the county.
This hamstrings JBG Smith, he continues.
“Collectively, these restrictions complicate the ability to re-design existing signage for new tenants and present obstacles to achieving new rooftop signage,” Whitmore wrote.
JBG Smith is requesting the county remove restrictions for Crystal Park 1 and 3 office buildings, located at 2011 Crystal Drive and 2231 Crystal Drive. Instead, it asks the county evaluate new signage only in accordance to the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance.
In 2012, the zoning code was updated, providing new clarifying parameters for signs and only requiring staff review. This change did not apply to a smattering of older developments throughout Arlington governed by more restrictive agreements.
County staff say this change would make it easier for JBG Smith to compete for tenants.
“As commercial buildings mature and market themselves for new tenants, it is imperative that building owners be able to avail themselves of sign permissions available to other similar buildings so as to not place themselves at a competitive disadvantage,” the report said.
The county notes that other building owners have made similar requests and had the support of staff, as this “allow[s] for fair administration of building signage.”
The report says Crystal City and Aurora Highlands civic associations told the county they do not support JBG Smith’s request because it could allow for more signs.
The other reason, leaders told the county, is that the current provisions were decided through negotiated community benefits during the site plan review process.
“The community accepted less in the way of other benefits to limit the number and size of signs, so they believe that changes to allow more signs would not be fair,” the report says.
The county says it found no evidence that the more restrictive language was related to community benefit packages.
“Rather these were common site plan conditions approved in the absence of comprehensive sign provisions of the [zoning ordinance], which are now in place,” the report said.
Eric Cassel, the president of the Crystal City Civic Association, told ARLnow this morning that, as of now, the issue is “relatively minor.”
“JBGS downgraded the proposal significantly and we are not spending resources to oppose it,” he said.
(Updated at 8:45 a.m. on 7/4/23) Arlington County says it is enforcing some wayward fencing and gates in a public alley abutting Advanced Towing and American Service Center.
It all started because of complaints about tow trucks for the Ballston company parking in front of “the most famous fire hydrant in Arlington County,” so named by public safety watchdog Dave Statter.
Over the last year, an anonymous Twitter account dedicated to the hydrant has made Freedom of Information Act requests to ascertain the alley’s ownership and highlight the county’s responsibility for overseeing how it is used. This inquiry sparked several complaints about illegal parking last fall.
This week, the information requests unearthed an update: the county said it owns the 5th Road N. alley, off N. Quincy Street in Ballston. It said it is working with Advanced Towing to remove a fence and American Service Center, which operates the Mercedes-Benz dealership, to remove the gates.
The owner of the “Advanced Towing Fire Hydrant” Twitter account, says highlighting the zoning code issues was not because of an ax to grind with the towing company. Instead, it was to highlight the degree to which enforcement decisions lie with the Office of the County Manager.
“You shouldn’t have to crowdsource outrage on Twitter to get the government to enforce existing parking regulations,” the account owner, who wants to remain anonymous, told ARLnow.
Confirmation from @ArlingtonVA that #advancedtowing does NOT own the alley. @ArlingtonVA is taking Zoning enforcement actions. pic.twitter.com/K4M6XbO2cZ
— Advanced Towing Fire Hydrant (@AdvTowHydrant) July 31, 2023
In a statement, county spokesman Ryan Hudson confirmed the enforcement would begin and traced the move back to citizen complaints.
“Zoning started enforcement due to the fact that these two businesses are encroaching on public land,” he says. “The genesis was a complaint about illegally parked cars in front of the fire hydrant. That led us to become aware the fence didn’t meet the clearance of 3 feet and didn’t have Zoning approval.”
The fire hydrant account posted about the wayward fence earlier this year.
What happened here? @ArlingtonVA @ArlingtonDES. @ArlingtonVaFD don't forget the closest working fire hydrant is still blocked by the #advancedtowing fence. It might be a good time to stop ignoring the issue. pic.twitter.com/H1GINjpmFj
— Advanced Towing Fire Hydrant (@AdvTowHydrant) February 17, 2023
A spokesperson for Advanced Towing confirmed the company is complying with the request.
“We have been in touch with the County and our fence will be open tomorrow,” an Advanced Towing spokesperson said in an email, adding that the company never put the fence up and it has been there for well over 20 years.
Arlington County approved a certificate of occupancy for the tow company but that did not amount to permission to occupy the alley, according to a copy provided to the Advanced Towing Fire Hydrant Twitter account.
While the company can occupy the alley, Hudson says the fence has to be moved back because it is encroaching into a 10-foot wide public alley. Fences on private property are allowed with proper approval — just not in a public alleyway.
“The County, not adjacent property owners or tenants, will determine how to operate and maintain the public alley,” the county spokesman said.
The alley adjacent to the American Service Center property, meanwhile, is a public alley not owned by the auto repair company.
“Gates need to remain open because they are obstructing public use of and access to the public alley,” Hudson said.
A spokeswoman for American Service Center told ARLnow she was directed “not to discuss anything with anyone.”
Arlington County is considering changes to its zoning ordinance to encourage the construction of more senior care facilities.
The proposed changes include increasing the maximum building heights for elder care facilities in Pentagon City and allowing the construction of elder care facilities along the Columbia Pike corridor, per a county report.
The report says these changes are needed to ensure the existing zoning code supports the vision of the Pentagon City Sector Plan, adopted last year. During an initial review of proposed redevelopment projects, staff said they identified inconsistencies between the two related to building height codes for elder care facilities.
To address these issues, staff have proposed an amendment clarifying where elder care facilities can be built in areas of Pentagon City that are zoned for multifamily uses — and how tall these buildings can be.
The amendment targets the part of the neighborhood within a “coordinated redevelopment district” within the boundaries of 16th Street S. to the south, S. Lynn Street to the west, Army Navy Drive to the north and S. Eads Street to the east.
This appears to map onto the site of the RiverHouse complex, which is set to be redeveloped with new apartments, including senior housing. The report does not mention this planned redevelopment specifically but it does note that recent redevelopment plans revealed the inconsistencies staff are trying to resolve.
Doing this analysis, staff discovered that existing ordinances excluded the construction of additional elder care facilities along Columbia Pike, per the report.
To resolve this issue, the report says the amendment also “introduces assisted living facilities, independent living facilities, nursing homes, and continuing care retirement communities as allowable forms of residential use” on Columbia Pike.
The amendment comes several years after the county initially proposed the possibility of opening up some areas zoned for multi-family and commercial buildings to senior centers in 2019.
Some members of the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission and Crystal and Pentagon Cities Council expressed concerns about whether increasing the height of elder care facilities would complicate evacuation in the event of an emergency, according to the county report.
Other members argued there are a wide range of examples of high-rise elder care facilities, as close as Tysons Corner.
Staff said any new construction would still need to comply with “appropriate” building and fire code standards. Staff did note in the report that they plan to conduct a comprehensive analysis of permitted heights for elder care facilities in other zoning districts and special planning areas.
“Clarifying zoning language… will ensure buildings with elder care uses can be properly considered throughout the County and redevelopment in [multifamily]-zoned properties and property owners/developers can propose uses consistent with recommendations adopted in earlier planning efforts,” the report said.
These changes are set to be discussed during a public hearing by the Planning Commission on Sept. 11 and the County Board on Sept. 23.
In another bid to encourage business growth, the Arlington County Board has made it easier to open shared kitchens and catering and food delivery operations.
On Saturday, the Board voted to amend the zoning ordinance to allow these uses by right in mixed-use, commercial and industrial zones throughout Arlington County. The changes streamline the regulatory approval process for several food-related uses, according to a county report.
“The outcomes of expanding food delivery to a by-right use support small business resilience by relieving businesses of unnecessary work,” the report said. That includes going before the County Board to seek approval for each use.
The changes are part of a flurry of approvals in the last 14 months to allow more uses by-right in these zoning districts. So far, the County Board has greenlit uses such as breweries, micro-fulfillment centers, podcasting studios, indoor pickleball and other emerging businesses to operate where they previously could not set up shop or needed special permission to do so.
All these updates happened in quick succession because County Manager Mark Schwartz debuted a faster zoning approval process that streamlined community engagement. The intent was to help Arlington respond quickly to changing market conditions and, ultimately, tackle the high office vacancy rate.
Food service was the next candidate for an update because, the report says, local regulations treated delivery operations like it was still 1988. (The iPhone debuted in 2007.)
Per the report, the zoning ordinance “does not account for the present-day popularity of modern food delivery services,” requiring food delivery not to exceed 20% of a restaurant’s sales.
Restaurants were relieved of that kind of provision — borne from a concern about delivery vehicle congestion — during the pandemic, the report said.
Food delivery has become a permanent part of how Arlingtonians eat, even after Covid dining restrictions lifted. This new way of doing business was under threat by the expiration of the Covid-era Continuity of Governance ordinance that relaxed delivery regulations.
The changes approved on Saturday, then, came in the knick of time for new and existing businesses, as the ordinance is set to expire in August — meaning the county would have reverted to 1988 delivery standards.
Businesses would have had to obtain County Board approval to continue delivery, had the Board voted down the zoning change. Some already did — Foxtrot in Rosslyn, for instance, went before the Board earlier this year to continue delivering beverages, ready-made food and grocery items.
Saturday’s vote also is helping another player in the app-based food delivery ecosystem: trailer-based ghost kitchens, the kind of which you might see in a parking lot between Clarendon and Courthouse. Ghost kitchen operators will no longer need certain permits to continue cooking.
A collection of garden apartments near Rosslyn are set to be renovated this year.
On Saturday, the Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing received the last approvals it needed to repair 62 committed affordable units across six garden apartment buildings in the Radnor-Ft. Myer Heights neighborhood.
These renovations are part of a two-phase redevelopment project of The Marbella Apartments along N. Queen Street near Route 50. Two 12-story, 100% affordable buildings will replace a three-story, garden-style complex north of Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall while the other 62 units will be renovated.
These units will get updated windows and façades as well as interiors, new handrails and new wells that protect windows that are level with the ground from soil, known as window wells.
The project had nearly cleared the last design and permitting stages when it was discovered that the property does not conform with present-day Zoning Ordinance regulations, per a county report. That meant some of its repairs, including the window wells, could not proceed by-right.
The apartments were built by-right in the 1940s, a decade before the ordinance was enacted. The buildings now do not meet the ordinance’s requirements for how close a property could be to the street nor parking and density regulations.
Arlington County staff and the applicant argued against trying to make the buildings conform with current zoning rules.
“Bringing the existing buildings into conformance with current parking and setback standards would negatively impact existing units, mature trees, and open space, thus compromising the goals of affordable housing preservation and the historic qualities of the garden apartment property,” the report said.
Instead, on Saturday, the Arlington County Board designated the property with the Marbella Apartments as a “Voluntary Coordinated Housing Preservation and Development District.”
The property joins some eight other buildings in Arlington, the report says. They received this designation between 1992 and 2011.
The Board also approved a related use permit. These two moves allow the planned structural changes to the apartments without making them conform to zoning ordinances.
The buildings consist of mostly 1-bedroom apartments, with some studio, 2- and 3-bedroom units. They are available to people earning a mix of incomes up to 60% of the area median income.
Neither the report nor application materials indicated when renovations would begin.
Arlington County has filed a response to the Missing Middle lawsuit against it.
Ten residents are suing the county, arguing that the recently-passed zoning changes known as Missing Middle were approved illegally and would allow development that harms their lives.
In a response shared with ARLnow, dated last Tuesday, May 23, the county argues that the plaintiffs did not prove they, in particular, will be harmed by any new development. It also disputes the claims that the county broke specific provisions in Virginia law related to zoning deliberations and meeting procedures.
Now that both sides have made their cases in writing, a hearing in the civil division of Arlington County Circuit Court is set for July 11 at 10 a.m. In other recent zoning battles in Virginia courts, the lower courts ruled in favor of the county government, while the state Supreme Court overturned those decisions.
The complaint against the county was filed in April, about a month after the Arlington County Board ratified zoning changes that allow the construction of 2-6 unit homes on lots previously zoned for single-family homes.
The plaintiffs complained their property values will be hurt and their quality of life diminished by any new “Expanded Housing Option” or EHO development.
They also said the Arlington County Board failed to properly advertise what was being considered and did not do the due diligence needed to understand the impact of increased density on the neighborhood level.
Arlington County is challenging the legitimacy of the lawsuit, asking the court to rule that the facts of the Missing Middle saga invalidate the claims and dismiss the case so it cannot come before the court again.
On substantive grounds, the county challenges the 10 residents, saying they failed to show the zoning changes will burden them such that the county must provide relief.
For instance, the plaintiffs predicted several negative impacts as a result of the change: increased flooding, sewage backups, school overcrowding and difficulty driving on narrow streets cramped with cars parked on the street. Arlington County says that is speculative at best.
“No property has been developed under the terms of the Zoning Amendment, and any allegations of harm are pure speculation,” the county said in its lawsuit. “The court cannot be asked to issue an advisory opinion based on hypothetical facts.”
The 10 residents also say the Arlington County Board did not consider a long list of societal impacts of which state code requires consideration prior to zoning code changes.
Just because it did not conduct the “special studies or investigations” the plaintiffs claimed were necessary does not mean the factors were not considered at all, Arlington County argues.
“The Board Report, the testimony of the County’s professional staff, and the testimony of the members of the County’s Planning Commission, Housing Commission, Transportation Commission and other advisory commissions and public speakers shows that the County Board adequately considered the factors in [state code],” the suit says.
The plaintiffs also claim the county exceeded its authority when it instituted tree canopy requirements tied to the number of units on a property. They said it violates the Dillon Rule to require more than what is required in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance.
Arlington County sees it differently.
“The county amended its zoning ordinance to create an incentive for tree plantings in exchange for increased density, as permitted through its power to administer incentive zoning,” it says.