Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Plan Review Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairfax staff implement state law shortening plan‑review timelines, warn of capacity limits
Summary
Land Development Services described changes required by House Bill 2660: shorter forwarding and review deadlines, a new director‑level review on the fourth submission, and local code updates already reflected in county review software; staff said they have implemented process changes but cautioned that increases in submittals could strain capacity.
County Land Development Services staff briefed the committee on House Bill 2660 and how the county has adapted to the new review timelines.
Jerry Stonefield (Land Development Services) said the House bill shortened county forwarding time to state agencies from 10 to 5 days and reduced the first county review from 60 to 40 days, with subsequent resubmissions also subject to shorter deadlines. The bill also creates a director‑level review on the fourth submission, giving a supervising official 14 days to review and then seven days for a decision or acceptance of inserts, which is intended to reduce repetitive or non‑code comments.
Kirsten Munce of Site Development Inspections noted staff have already updated the county—s plan‑tracking system to calculate the new deadlines and trained reviewers; the changes took effect July 1. Supervisors asked about practical impacts on staffing and VDOT coordination. Staff said the new timelines apply to county and state agency review windows; VDOT review time was reduced in the bill as well, but combined internal and state agency review can still create total review periods (examples cited of about 40–45 days when state review is required).
Supervisors and staff discussed efforts to reduce redundant comments, use a designated plans examiner program to speed reviews, and provide compliance assistance to applicants. Staff said the county will monitor workloads and continue outreach to engineering firms to reduce repeat submissions but acknowledged that a surge in submissions could strain capacity despite current process changes.
No vote was taken; county staff said they will bring ordinance amendments to align local code provisions with the state law and that the system updates are already in place.
