Arlington planning staff lay out 2025 work program; warn of surge in site‑plan renewals and staffing strains

Anthony Fusarelli, representing the Arlington County Planning Division, presented the division’s proposed work program for calendar year 2025 and beyond at a March 5 County Board work session, saying the team aims to “advance several targeted zoning studies” while maintaining day‑to‑day development‑review responsibilities.

The presentation and board discussion emphasized three near‑term pressures: a sustained pipeline of development applications, a likely wave of site‑plan renewal requests after the Code of Virginia’s automatic extension provisions lapsed, and a proposed cut to a principal planner position in the division’s comprehensive‑planning team included in the county manager’s proposed FY26 budget.

Why it matters: The Planning Division’s workload touches permitting, zoning, long‑range planning and site inspections that affect new housing, redevelopment of vacant offices, and public‑realm outcomes across Arlington neighborhoods. A surge in site‑plan renewals would increase nondiscretionary review work this spring and could delay other long‑range and zoning studies the division is proposing.

Fusarelli told board members the division is organized across current planning, comprehensive planning and urban design, supported by an administrative team; staff numbers total 30 full‑time positions, with two current vacancies. He said 2024 work included nine major site‑plan and use‑permit approvals, multiple zoning‑ordinance updates and the readoption of the Pentagon City sector plan. Using West Rosslyn as a case study, he noted recent approvals translated into nearly 900 market units, nearly 250 committed affordable units, a new county fire station, a new Arlington Public Schools facility, a new public park and about 25,000 square feet of retail.

On the expiring site plans, Aaron Schreiber, the division’s current‑planning lead, said staff had identified roughly 17 projects affected by the lapse of automatic renewals in state law and had contacted applicants. “We are in receipt of a couple of projects. And we will be batching those together and bringing them forward to the board for their consideration in June,” Schreiber said, and added his team currently expects to receive “somewhere around 10” applications for renewal in the June timeframe. Schreiber described staff work on renewals as limited to updating site‑plan conditions so older approvals meet current standards rather than redoing major design elements.

Board members pressed staff on capacity and prioritization. Fusarelli and staff said current planning has had “negative slack capacity” at times and noted the division produced about 125 staff reports to the County Board in 2024, roughly 30% of agenda items. The division emphasized cross‑training as one tool for responding to surges; Fusarelli said staff and the urban design team have “versatility” to shift among tasks when needed but warned that trade‑offs are inevitable when nondiscretionary review increases.

Planning Commission chair Tenley Peterson, who attended and briefed the board, said the commission values the division’s equity work and urged preserving revenue‑generating positions. “First the commission always has a high regard for equity, the work that the department is doing to advance equity in Arlington,” Peterson said. She and others urged caution before eliminating the comprehensive‑planning principal planner position, suggesting a hiring freeze instead of a permanent cut to preserve capacity and revenue‑generating review work.

Fees and equity: The meeting also revisited a recently completed fee analysis and forthcoming fee changes. Peterson said the Planning Commission approved the fee table but with concerns about large fee increases for projects that relate to county goals such as childcare, outdoor dining and accessory dwelling units. “If it’s street activation or childcare ... to me that seems like a lot for a childcare facility that already has trouble with their profitability,” she said, urging staff to consider the percentage impact of higher application fees on smaller projects.

Scope and near‑term priorities: Staff listed top priorities for 2025: completing updates to Administrative Regulation 4.1; implementing a new phase‑development use‑permit mechanism to support the Barcroft Apartments vision and future site applications; continuing work on Phase 1 of the comprehensive‑plan update to craft an introductory element and guiding principles; advancing targeted zoning studies (including the definition of “family,” allowances for instructional or institutional uses on institutional properties, Langston Boulevard implementation components, and landscape‑standards updates); and furthering adaptive‑reuse and economic‑resiliency work stemming from the Commercial Market Resiliency Initiative (CMRI).

On the “definition of family” study, staff said Arlington’s zoning definition limits unrelated occupants in a household and that other jurisdictions have revisited or removed similar definitions. The planning commission framed the potential change as an equity and affordability tool — for example, enabling nontraditional household configurations that spread housing costs among residents.

Process, engagement and metrics: Several board members asked for clearer metrics tying staff time and outcomes to proposed priorities. “Planning and permitting are kind of a major, major touch point both for the board and for the entire staff and the entire community,” said Board member Elizabeth Cunningham, urging more transparency about staff time, costs and elapsed time per project so the board can set priorities in a tight budget year. Staff said some estimates exist for application‑based work from the fee study and pledged to develop milestone‑based timelines as individual studies are scoped.

No formal County Board votes were taken at the work session. Staff identified next steps that are already on the board’s calendar or in progress: the county board will consider special‑study documents for 6045 Wilson Boulevard later in March; staff will batch and prepare site‑plan renewal items for board consideration in June; and the division plans to begin scoping and engagement for Phase 1 of the comprehensive‑plan update.

Ending: Board members and staff agreed to continue the conversation during the upcoming budget hearings and suggested a joint work session with the Planning Commission after the budget to align priorities, refine scopes and discuss potential consultant support for larger efforts such as Phase 2 of the general‑land‑use plan update.