Council Seeks to Retain Planning Commission Review of Site Plans

Background

Falls Church planning staff asked the City Council at its July 14, 2025 meeting to adopt a resolution directing staff to develop amendments to the City Code to reflect recent changes to Virginia state law on how localities review and approve site plan and subdivision plat applications.

The 2025 General Assembly amended the Virginia Code regulations governing site plan and subdivision approval authority, specifically:

• shortening the maximum time period for reviewing subdivision plats, site plans, and plans of development involving parcels of commercial or residential real estate from 60 to 45 days, and
• removing authority from the Planning Commission and City Council to approve site plans and assigning that responsibility to “a designated agent.”

The provisions of the legislation are detailed in Senate Bill (SB) 974 and House Bill (HB) 2660. Because the City’s Charter explicitly assigns authority for review of subdivision plats to the Planning Commission, the process for approving these applications will not change. However, the Charter does not confer such authority on the Planning Commission for site plans.

As a result, the City Council must revise the City’s site plan approval process and procedures to comply with the new law. At its June 16 meeting, the Council named the Planning Director the City’s designated agent for approving site plans. The next step in complying with the law is to amend several sections of the City Code affected by it. [For more information, see the Pulse post New State Law Guts Public Input on Site Plans, June 28, 2025.]

Coming code changes

According to the staff report presented by Acting Planning Director Gary Fuller, the staff is compiling a list of City Code sections affected by the State statute amendments. These sections include, but are not limited to, Chapter 2 Administration, Chapter 6 Buildings, Chapter 15 Fees, Chapter 38 Subdivision, and Chapter 48 Zoning. While he anticipates that most local code amendments will be clerical, Mr. Fuller said other sections will require additional consideration from the Council and technical staff.

“These sections include site plan waivers and Special Exception Site Plan (SESP) regulations, which concurrently consider a combined Special Exception and a site plan application,” the staff report said. “Waiver requests are common at time of site plan review and are presently determined by the Planning Commission. Waivers typically cover parking reductions, landscaping buffer adjustments, and site plan application submission requirements. Along with the updated code amendments derived from the State statute amendment, staff will be developing new additional waiver criteria for use by Planning Director (designated agent) when acting on site plans.”

Continuing desire for Planning Commission and public input

As they did when they first discussed the impact of the new law in early June, City Council members continued to express their desire for Planning Commission input and public comment on site plans.

Prior to adoption of the resolution to update the City Code on July 14, Council Member David Snyder offered a friendly amendment to staff that the resolution also “direct the Council’s Legislative Committee to prepare and advocate for amendments to the State Code that would provide for greater public and Planning Commission input” in site plan approvals. Council Member Erin Flynn seconded Mr. Snyder’s motion, and the Council ultimately voted unanimously in favor of it. The Council expects to approve the proposed changes to the City Code by mid-October.

Changing the City Charter a possible solution

City Council and staff discussion before approval of the amended resolution further explored the City’s next steps in addressing the impact of the new law. Community Relations and Legislative Affairs Director Cindy Mester emphasized the view that a change to the City’s Charter assigning site plan authority to the Planning Commission would be the best way to continue the Commission and the public’s input on site plans.

Council Discussions

Mayor Letty Hardi asked how practical an advisory role for the Planning Commission would be, given the shortened review time frames now required by law. City Attorney Sally Gillette cautioned that while nothing prohibits the Planning Commission from advising the designated agent, “we need to make sure that the advice given by the Planning Commission does not materially influence how interpretations are made at the staff level.” Ms. Gillette added that her advice also applies to public comment.

Acting Planning Director Fuller said that the staff will emphasize pre-meetings with site plan applicants to obtain the benefits of Planning Commission and public comment. He added that the staff will continue to provide legal notice by letter to adjacent properties within 150 feet of a proposed site plan as well as signage that a review and decision regarding a development are underway.

Council Member Flynn expressed concern that without a public hearing before the Planning Commission on site plans as the City has done until now, “the public wouldn’t necessarily know if a site plan is under administrative review.” She suggested that an agenda item on the Planning Commission agenda about submitted site plans might encourage citizens to reach out to staff to provide their views on these developments. Mr. Fuller said he likes this concept and will consider whether it can be implemented.

Mayor Hardi asked that the City Council “be open minded about this change, monitor how it goes, and not automatically put up the knee jerk reaction of ‘Oh, my God, we don’t like this change because it is a change to our process.’” She noted that site plan approvals are handled differently across Northern Virginia and that not every jurisdiction involves its planning commission in these decisions.

SB974 and HB2660 motivated by the promise of more affordable housing

At their June 2, 2025 work session, Council members questioned how the City’s representatives in Richmond came to support removing the Planning Commission from site plan approvals. The Pulse recently reached out to Senator Saddam Azlan Salim and Delegate Marcus Simon who serve Falls Church in the state government to learn what prompted them to back this legislation.

Legislative Assistant Patrick Giallorenzo responded that “Senator Salim voted for this measure to help make housing more affordable by reducing development times for new housing. Senator Van Valkenburg worked on this legislation beginning in 2024 with SB296, and worked with the National League of Cities and the American Planning Association in developing SB974.” 

Mr. Giallorenzo continued, “Public participation is vital to democratic governance. No concerns were raised about a potential reduction in opportunity for public comment when the bill was heard and public comment received by the Senate Committee on Local Government. If problems are identified or if the City government of Falls Church feels an exemption would be beneficial, that could be addressed with new legislation. The legislation already exempts certain smaller localities based on population.” At more than 15,000 residents, Falls Church City’s population exceeds the current exemption for localities with 5,000 or fewer residents.

The Pulse has yet to hear from Delegate Simon. However, in a column published July 17, 2025 in the Falls Church News-Press, Mr. Simon answered the questions this newsletter asked of him earlier this month.

“This year I sponsored a bill to bring more predictability and fairness to local land use decisions. My bill set reasonable, enforceable deadlines for local governments to act on zoning and site plan applications. It doesn’t take away local authority but rather ensures that decisions happen on a predictable timeline, so that we’re not driving up the cost of housing through bureaucratic delay,” he wrote.

Delegate Simon continued, “I also voted for a new law that moves final site plan approval into the hands of professional planning staff. Site plans should be judged by objective standards and not subject to shifting politics or last-minute opposition. Public engagement is critical in this process and there are plenty of opportunities for it during planning, rezoning, and design. However, the site plan stage is where we should be moving things forward, once building officials deem that the application is complete and follows regulations.”

He concluded that the legislation is unlikely to result in more affordable housing. “Frankly, this legislation probably won’t have that big an impact here in Falls Church because the City already does things very well, and infill projects approved at any speed probably can’t provide enough supply to meaningfully change the forces of supply and demand driving prices higher.

“That’s led some to wonder why the City should be subject to these new requirements at all. Legislation that makes the City move a little faster, and gives housing providers a little more certainty, though, won’t break the system. I believe it will make a great process even better.”