The historic affordable workforce housing initiative passed just a few months ago is on the verge of collapse. Site plan obstacles and a series of comments from volunteer boards and commissions critical of the plan are likely to end the project on the eve of an important funding window.
The affordable workforce housing initiative passed by the City Council in August will go before the Planning Commission on Monday night. The Planning Commission is generally seen as opposed to the initiative and voted against its approval this past summer. The City Council approved the initiative over the objections of the Planning Commission and in spite of several "no" votes from Council Members Team Dave Snyder and Nader Baroukh. The City Charter tasks the Planning Commission with approving the project site plan. Nader Baroukh also requested the Planning Commission review the project finances.
The Planning Commission is expected to reject the project site plan primarily based on the plan including a "shared parking" element. The Planning Commission has said it does not believe shared parking is consistent with current zoning codes. City staff and proponents of the project have pointed out the Planning Commission approved a similar shared parking plan for Vantage Fitness, and that residential and business shared use of parking works successfully in many other locations. However, the Planning Commission has been skeptical of the affordable workforce project, and the failure to resolve the issue may be enough for them to stick to an inflexible application of zoning codes and reject the plan.
If the Planning Commission rejects the plan, its refusal could be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and then be appealed to the Arlington Circuit Court. The Falls Church Housing Corporation must, however, have its funding package in order early in the New Year. The timeframes suggest if the Planning Commission rejects the site plan the FCHC will not be able to meet its funding requirements.
Additionally, the Falls Church Housing Commission and the Human Services Advisory Committee have signaled their opposition to the initiative. Opposition from these two volunteer boards has frustrated supporters of the project, who feel the boards unexpectedly did a broad review of the project without a lot of information on the project rather than looking at the narrower financial aspects they were expected to review.
If the Planning Commission rejects the site plan and the Housing Commission and Human Services Advisory Committee oppose the initiative the opportunity to move forward with local affordable workforce housing in the city will have passed for many years. The failure of this initiative, couple with the inevitable changes at Winter Hill, means the loss of more than eighty percent of affordable workforce housing stock in the City in the next few years.
