Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Eho topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County release shows 37 EHO permits in FY2024, early data point indicates net gain of housing units
Summary
Arlington staff presented the first-year data report on the county’s Expanded Housing Opportunities (EHO) program, saying 37 EHO permits were approved in fiscal 2024 and the permits analyzed produced a net increase of 111 housing units; staff and board members repeatedly cautioned the report covers only approved permits in a single year and does
Get email alerts on the Housing Eho topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arlington County staff on Dec. 17 presented an annual data report on the first full year of the county's Expanded Housing Opportunities (EHO) zoning program, telling the County Board that 37 EHO permits were approved during fiscal 2024 and that the permits analyzed produced a net increase of 111 housing units.
The report covers approved EHO permits with permit dates between July 1, 2023, and June 30, 2024. County staff warned the figures do not reflect later approvals or whether projects will proceed to building permits or be built in the face of a concurrent judicial challenge and partial stay from the courts.
Why it matters: Board members framed the report as an early, technical snapshot of market response to the new zoning option. They described the findings as evidence the EHO tools were producing smaller units in place of very large single-family redevelopments — a policy goal the board set to expand housing options — while also saying more time and more data are needed before drawing firm policy conclusions.
What staff reported - Permits in FY2024: 37 EHO permits approved. Staff said additional permits were approved after July 1, 2024, but those were not included in the fiscal-year report. - Net units: The approved EHO permits produced a net increase of 111 housing units in the year analyzed. - Unit size and mix: The most common EHO unit size was three bedrooms and the average unit size was 1,646 square feet, staff said. Most approved EHO projects were for two- and three-unit configurations (duplexes, semi-detached houses, tri- and triplexes); staff said they did not see the much-feared six‑plex pattern in that first year. - Comparison to redevelopments: Staff said many single‑family redevelopments during the same period produced larger houses (five or six bedrooms), underscoring a mismatch in the pipeline between new single-family replacements and the smaller ownership units EHO sought to preserve or enable.
Board reaction and cautions Board members thanked staff for the analysis and repeatedly cautioned that the report is limited to a small early sample and that permit approval does not guarantee construction. Several members flagged concerns about lot coverage increases in some EHO permit designs and noted that some early tear-downs occurred to clear sites for new work. Vice Chair Karen Garrity (remarks summarized) emphasized the report covered a dynamic, supply-starved market and urged continuing oversight of outcomes.
Legal context The board and staff noted that the EHO program has been the subject of litigation. Staff emphasized that the annual report looks only at permits approved during the fiscal year and does not presume those projects will be built or unaffected by the court’s partial stay related to ongoing litigation.
What’s next Staff posted the raw data for community review and said future boards can request follow-up reports. Several board members urged the county to publish subsequent annual updates and to use raw datasets to allow outside analysts to explore neighborhood-level impacts.
Clarifying details - Reported FY period: July 1, 2023–June 30, 2024. - Approved EHO permits included units concentrated in 20 civic associations across the county, according to staff. - The report compared EHO-approved permits to single-family redevelopment permits during the same fiscal year.
Ending Board members generally welcomed the data as an early sign the policy was producing smaller, more typical ownership-sized units, but they underscored the need for longer-term monitoring and careful follow-up given legal uncertainty and the limited one‑year sample.

