By Tabitha Ricketts

As Vice President of Neighborhood Conservation, I serve as Lyon Park’s representative to the Arlington Neighborhoods Advisory Committee—ArNAC, for short. ArNAC is a program through which the neighborhoods of Arlington can leverage Arlington County government funding for projects that benefit our community. 

These projects can be capital improvements—updates to streets, streetlights, sidewalks, and other pedestrian safety measures, for example. There is also an increasing number of beautification projects in the works, which can help to improve the appeal and usefulness of County-owned parks and add green space where concrete would otherwise prevail. You can learn more about neighborhood-driven projects by visiting www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Arlington-Neighborhoods-Program/Capital-Improvement-Projects or explore a broader range of County-funded projects at www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Project-Types. 

What does this mean for Lyon Park? We, the members of the community, get to decide! As you look around our neighborhood, what stands out to you as an area that could use improvement? The first step is to have an idea. From there, we can start working through the steps to turn an idea into a project proposal. 

When determining priority projects for Lyon Park, I’ll consider the following factors:

– Size, scope, and cost of the project—the effort required

– Level of impact—the number of neighbors benefitting

– Proposed champion—a neighbor ready to lead the charge and champion the project with me

– Neighbor support—sentiment of the neighbors directly impacted by the proposed project

– Additional funding sources

– Bonus for sidewalk or park project

Priority will go to projects that are lower in effort, positively impact the greatest number of neighbors, have a dedicated champion ready to work through the process, have general support from impacted neighbors, have additional funding sources to supplement County funding, and address sidewalks or County park locations. (Note that Lyon Park and our community center are owned by us, the neighborhood; that is not a County park.)

These criteria align closely with the ArNAC points system, in which points are awarded to neighborhood projects in the Committee’s queue (projects with the highest point value determine which projects are considered for approval first by ArNAC and then by the County). The ArNAC points system awards additional points for projects with supplemental funding sources and sidewalk or park projects, so our priority measurement takes that into account.

Are you ready to get started? Reach out to me via email at Tabitharicketts@gmail.com with your ideas, keeping in mind the factors listed above, and let’s turn our dreams into actions!. 

By Anne Bodine

The County Board in July advertised a proposed zoning code amendment (the gist of which is contained in the Board report for the county board meeting) to allow recovery homes in Arlington. The policy will be up for final approval in October. The proposed policy change includes several revisions to policy and code:

– re-definition of “recovery residences;”

– allowing recovery residences:

– by-right in single-family detached dwellings for up to 8 unrelated persons; and

– by special exception use permit approval for either more than 8 persons, or in a dwelling unit other than a detached single-family dwelling;

– modifying “residential use classification” to categorize recovery residences as an example of Household Living

The proposal was on tap for a final Board vote September 14, but Board Chair Garvey deferred action to an October 7 Planning Commission meeting with a final vote by the Board October 19.  If you have concerns about the new proposals, you need to weigh in with one or both of these groups. More background follows:

The first of the proposed changes aligns Arlington’s definition of “recovery residence” with that of Virginia (Code §37.2-461.1), namely

“a housing facility…certified by the Department [of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services or BHDS]…and provides alcohol-free and illicit-drug-free housing to individuals with substance abuse disorders and individuals with co-occurring mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders that does not include clinical treatment services.”

The second change increases the number of residents in single-family detached homes from four to eight (with no use permit), and increases the numbers in multifamily areas from four to “more than eight persons” through a use permit.

Background. In 2023, Oxford House, Inc. which operates nationally asked the county to allow it to “operate” recovery residences in single-family detached homes and cited persons in drug and/or alcohol recovery as “handicapped individuals” per the 1988 amendments to the Federal Fair Housing Act. Oxford requested that the recovery residence receive equal treatment to single-family dwellings under the zoning regulations.

Currently, Arlington zoning code is silent on the issue of recovery residences, which means they are not “explicitly permitted.”  County staff notes the “closest cognate is group homes for persons with developmental disabilities.”  Staff also reported that recovery homes are not required to follow regulations the same regulations that apply to group homes for those with developmental disabilities, including:

licensing by State Authorities (instead recovery residences are “certified” by VA BHDS as complying with the standards in Code of Virginia §37.2-431.1 but there are no penalties because the facilities are self-regulating);

Operation via a non-profit or government organizations (instead they operate independently);

Onsite resident care or services.

Current zoning allows up to 4 unrelated adults to live in a home together; it also allows 8 unrelated individuals with developmental or intellectual disabilities to occupy one home, including detached single-family homes. Arlington also requires that such homes be licensed by the State which means recovery homes have not been permitted. (Note:  The Virginia House of Delegates will carry over House Bill 646 from the 2024 legislative session that would require jurisdictions to govern recovery homes by the same standard, notwithstanding this State Licensing provision. If this were to be enacted next year, Arlington would have to allow the recovery homes in the same manner as it currently is proposing with this zoning amendment in October.

While not mentioned in the Board report, Arlington apparently already has eight recovery residences, some in single-family homes, some run by Oxford Houses, all of which are apparently illegal since our zoning code does not recognize this as a legal use of property yet. Only four of them are currently “certified” as required by the state. At a minimum this is very complex as it intertwines federal, state, and local law. It’s worth noting there has been documented fraud with recovery homes in other states, and some states are trying to better regulate such homes, which are also often owned by investors unrelated to Oxford House or other recovery home “managers.”  If you would like more information, please contact me at annebodine@yahoo.com. I recommend you also read and watch the Board report and the resources listed below:

Staff presentation to county board July 22, 2024

Planning Commission Meeting September 4, 2024. 

By Anne Bodine, VP of Development

On June 18, the County Board voted 4-0 to approve a conditional use permit for Tyndale Christian School on the site owned by Bloss Free Will Baptist Church at 716 N. Barton St. The school will be operating pursuant to conditions laid out in the Board report of June 14 (and revised on June 18). This allows the school to operate for six months with up to 40 students (elementary through 8th grade), using four onsite parking spots (vs. six to seven spots required by code) and waiving the code requirement for a loading area. The church use at this site has been discontinued.

The approved use permit was a revision from the original request to enroll up to 80 students this year (with a larger onsite parking requirement). LPCA requested that the Board pursue a one-month deferral to let the applicant secure a permanent fix for the parking and get more clarity on the pick-up/drop-off (PUDO) plans. As the school aims for an eventual enrollment of`135, the parking and transportation issues present a quandary. Many public speakers supported the school, but the majority expressed concerns about these two issues. LPCA welcomes the school and will stay engaged as things advance onsite. Contact annebodine@yahoo.com if you have comments on the school as it gears up to welcome its first class. 

On July 22, the County Board approved a site plan amendment (SP#465) for the Joyce Motors project, an 11-story mixed-use residential building with 231 units planned for development at 1020 North Irving Street. The LPCA is one of five civic associations permitted to comment on the project, as we were involved in the 2022 update to the Clarendon Sector Plan. The applicant received an additional 1,629 square feet of gross floor area, a slight revision to the window design, a reduction of 10 residential units, and the elimination of 37 below-grade parking spaces. According to Ashton Heights, which lobbied for better parking during the initial site plan review, the developer will now have a parking ratio of .52 spaces per residential unit—less than the developer’s original 2021 request for a .57 ratio, which Ashton Heights opposed, and significantly less than the .64 ratio that was originally approved by the Board. While the county indicated in July that “this [revised] parking ratio is consistent with adopted County guidance,” it nonetheless requires a variance from the zoning code. The county further justified the reduction by noting that Clarendon is very transit-accessible. The LPCA objected to the parking reduction while agreeing to the other requests. We pointed out that this project was the first to be approved under the more developer-friendly sector plan revisions and that such significant reductions were not supported by the parking experience from other recent high-density constructions. We requested a parking study and the return of the 10th St. Park, which had originally been promised as a community benefit for this development.

Perhaps most troubling is that both of these cases exposed severe flaws with the process of our community engagement. In the Tyndale case, the county staff failed to notify LPCA of a substantive change in the parking elements that severely affected community consensus. Staff admitted as much at the Board meeting, but this practice undercuts the very idea of proper engagement. Additionally, the Board rearranged the regular order of the meeting, allowing Board Chair Garvey to miss the extensive public comment, and only hearing positions of the applicant and staff. This would be like a judge absenting him/herself from the courtroom for part of a trial. LPCA also believes the county violated the State Freedom of Information Act, which requires local jurisdictions to make board materials available to the public at the same time they make them available to the County Board. In the case of Joyce Motors, we were excluded entirely from the negotiation with the developer to agree on additional community benefits. In this case, the developer will add funds to the Affordable Housing Investment Fund, but the site plan review process is supposed to ensure the affected neighborhoods remain part of the process throughout. LPCA believes we need to address the exclusions that are apparently taking place if/when applicants pursue site plan amendments. The seat at the table is not negotiable. We may take this to the Civic Federation for broader consideration next year.

Come to the September 11 LPCA meeting at 7 p.m. at the Community Center if you want to hear more or ask questions. If you are interested in getting involved in future discussions, please contact Michael Kunkler at LyonParkPresident@gmail.com.