Land Development Services

Fairfax County, Virginia

CONTACT INFORMATION: Hours of Operation: 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Permitting Business Hours: 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. (M-Th), 9:15 a.m. - 4 p.m. (F)

703-324-1780
TTY 711

12055 Government Center Pkwy
Fairfax, VA 22035

Bill Hicks,
Director

Land Development Notices

Notices provide details of procedural and program changes impacting the land development and permit application process.

You can receive email updates when new information is available by subscribing to the Letters to Industry email list.

As per our email of June 17, the Pro Rata Share Assessment Rate and Credit changes go into effect July 1, 2020.

Effective July 1, 2020, the countywide Stormwater Pro Rata Share Assessment rate will change from $24,360.75 to $23,254.22 per increase in impervious acre; the maximum water quality credit will decrease from 39.5% to 38.2%; and the maximum water quantity credit will increase from 60.5% to 61.8%.

As a reminder, the payments collected via this assessment make a valuable contribution to the environment. These funds, aggregated countywide and collected during the development process, pay for needed drainage facilities that minimize damage to receiving waters within Fairfax County as well as the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. They also alleviate flood damage and arrest deterioration of existing drainageways.

The Pro Rata Share for an individual development project equals the proportion of the total estimated cost of the drainage improvement program to be accepted by the developer, and is based on the increase of impervious area of the project, minus any applicable credit for providing on-site stormwater management facilities and best management practices as part of the new construction.

Once collected the assessment fees are allocated by the Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services. Visit the Stormwater Management page to learn more about typical community improvement projects supported by funding from the Pro Rata Assessment fee and other funding sources.

For more information on Pro Rata Share Assessment, refer to Public Facilities Manual (PFM) § 6-0600.

 

June 17, 2020

Revised Stormwater Pro Rata Share Assessment Rate and Credit

Effective July 1, 2020, the countywide Stormwater Pro Rata Share Assessment rate will change from $24,360.75 to $23,254.22 per increase in impervious acre; the maximum water quality credit will decrease from 39.5% to 38.2%; and the maximum water quantity credit will increase from 60.5% to 61.8%.

 

If you have any questions, please contact the Customer and Technical Support Center at 703‑222-0801, TTY 711.

Effective April 20, 2020, you must submit the following through ProjectDox including the ten new plan types in bold:

  • Public Improvement Plan (PI)
  • PI Revisions (PIV)
  • Rough Grading Plan (RGP)
  • RGP Revisions (RGPV)
  • Subdivisions (SD)
  • SD Revisions (SDV)
  • Conservation (CON)
  • CON Revisions (CONV)
  • Subdivision Grading Plans (SDGP)
  • Site Plan Grading Plan (SPGP)
  • Site Plans (SP)
  • Site Plan Revisions (SPV)
  • Minor Site Plans (MSP)
  • Minor Site Plan Revisions (MSPV)
  • Infill Lot Grading Plans (INF)
  • INF Revisions (INFV)

Effective immediately, requests for the plan types listed above will no longer be accepted through Sharefile. Please hold submissions for these types until April 20 and submit via ProjectDox.

For plans that were submitted through Sharefile after April 11, you may be asked to resubmit using ProjectDox. This resubmission through ProjectDox will ensure that your plans are logged in, distributed, reviewed and returned to you more efficiently.

Any site-related plans not listed above, should be submitted through Sharefile, including the following:

  • Plats
  • Waivers
  • Soils Reports
  • Parking Studies
  • Any other plan types not listed

The following links provide further guidance on the electronic submission process: LDS Operational Status and ePlans.

Thank you for your continued flexibility as we expand our online services.

If you have not already heard, at today’s Board of Supervisors meeting, the board approved an ordinance extending the validity of director-approved plans, plats, grading permits, parking reductions and modifications or waivers of Public Facilities Manual standards.  All documents referenced above that are expected to expire while the county is still under state of emergency will be automatically extended, without additional approval, until 60 days after the Board of Supervisors ends the declared emergency. 

In addition, the County Building Official has extended all building permits expected to expire while the county is still under state of emergency, without additional approval, until 60 days after the Board of Supervisors ends the declared emergency.

Although we do not know when the emergency will end, the Virginia state of emergency is in effect until June 10th (unless rescinded before then). 

This ordinance and the Building Official action help LDS and our industry partners continue our essential services to homeowners and the development community. (The ordinance does not address preliminary subdivision plats, which are not subject to extension.)

Thank you for your patience as we continue to refine our processes and procedures during this extraordinary global pandemic.

In instances where new construction is reconnecting to existing building sewers and drains, the Virginia Residential Code and Virginia Plumbing Code require evaluations to be conducted. Such evaluations, performed by video, must confirm existing materials is equal to that required by the code for new construction. Prior to recording, ensure the pipeline has been flushed with water. At a minimum the evaluation must provide verification of the following:

  • Address or lot location
  • Internal dimensions
  • Pipe wall smoothness
  • No standing water
  • Free from obstructions
  • No physical separations
  • No misalignments
  • No holes in the pipe walls
  • No other imperfections that could cause future blockage

While this requirement has been in existence for numerous code cycles, the Building Division is making it easier to make your video footage available for review. A new website has been developed where you can upload video files for staff review. Once evaluated, staff will notify you of the approval status. If not approved, a pipeline replacement may be required. Final inspections cannot be approved until videos have been evaluated and approved.

For questions, please call the Building Inspections Branch at 703-631-5101, TTY 711 and ask to speak with a field supervisor.

The Building Division of Land Development Services is unveiling a new program to allow self-certification of plans associated with new antenna/cell phone equipment on existing towers or monopoles. Through acknowledgement of the owner and certifications by the design engineers, plan reviews for qualifying projects will be waived allowing for faster permit issuance.

This waiver is not applicable to new towers, new monopoles and new or replacement equipment on existing buildings.

To take advantage of the plan review waiver, attach a completed Antenna Certification Form to each set of plans during permit application. Building Plan Review technicians will process the plans with a goal to make them available for pick-up within 24 hours of submission.

Fire Protection System Shop Drawing Submissions to the Office of the Fire Marshal

Shop drawings for fire protection systems, such as fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems, are required to be submitted for review and approval, prior to system installation.  The Office of the Fire Marshal, Engineering Plans Review Branch, oversees this program. 

Shop drawings can be submitted any time after a building permit has been applied for.  The building permit does not need to be approved prior to the shop drawing submittal.  While this practice has been in place for many years, it has come to our attention that this may not be well known or regularly practiced.

We recommend shop drawings get submitted as soon as possible after the building permit has been applied for.  This helps to ensure adequate time to receive a permit to begin construction of these critical life safety features.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact John Walser at 703-246-4889.

The list of manufactured treatment devices (MTDs) that have obtained interim approval by the Virginia Stormwater BMP Clearinghouse as proprietary best management practices, and have been approved for use in Fairfax County to meet the water quality control requirements of Stormwater Management Ordinance Article 4 in accordance with PFM § 6-0402.3B can be found at https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/landdevelopment/publications. This list will be updated as new MTDs are approved in the future. If you have any questions, please contact Site Code Research and Development at 703-324-5175, TTY 711.

Do you have industrial storage racks, or are you planning to install them, in your facility?  If so, then you need to be aware of these basic safety precautions to reduce the likelihood of an expensive and dangerous rack collapse. 

Industrial storage racks are not shelving units one would expect to find in a residence.  They are engineered shelving systems designed to support the condensed vertical storage of materials, often in pallets, and are typically found in large warehouses and big-box retail stores.  Industrial rack systems can stand over two stories tall and support several tons of stored items.  Since they are primarily constructed of slender components that are subjected to significant compression loads, buckling of individual members due to eccentric loading can be a concern, for example, when part of the frame becomes out of plumb.  If left unchecked, catastrophic failure of the rack system can result.  When part of a rack system fails, it often results in collapse of an entire row, since it is connected together.  If the collapsing row falls onto a neighboring row of racks, as is likely for closely spaced rows, a domino effect can result in the collapse of several rows. 

A northern Virginia facility recently experienced a rack system failure involving the collapse of a row of racks approximately 30 feet high and 200 feet long killing one person and injuring several others. 

Proper installation, maintenance, and operational procedures are necessary to mitigate the dangers involved for those working around industrial storage racks.  A permit is also required for the installation of industrial storage racks since they are regulated by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC).  Section 2209 of the 2012 Virginia Construction Code specifies that the design, testing and utilization of industrial steel storage racks shall comply with the 2008 ANSI MH 16.1, Specification for the Design, Testing, and Utilization of Industrial Steel Storage Racks, published by the Rack Manufacturers Institute (RMI). 

The owner is required to maintain the structural integrity of the rack system through proper operational, housekeeping, and maintenance procedures, especially in regards to properly securing the racks, preventing overloading, and inspecting for damage.  Watch out for rack columns improperly anchored to the floor or not anchored at all, missing load ratings posted for each bay, and damaged or deformed rack components.  Each column should have a base plate with anchor bolts sized to resists the loads imposed on the racks securely attached to the floor.  Load ratings should be posted by level and bay.  Racks should be routinely inspected for damage to ensure that they are secured, level, and not deformed.  Employees should be encouraged to report rack damage promptly.  Damaged portions of racks should not be used until they are properly repaired. 

If you have any questions, please contact the Customer and Technical Support Center at 703-222-0801, TTY 711, or email us.

Effective July 1, 2017, engineering and construction drawings and plans for any single-family residential dwelling submitted for the purpose of complying with the Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) or the Statewide Fire Prevention Code (SFPC) shall be confidential and shall no longer be subject to disclosure under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), except to the applicant or owner of the property. Information about the latest legislative amendment, amending Code of Virginia §36-105.3, can be found online at the Virginia's Legislative Information System under HB 1587 Uniform Statewide Building Code; security of certain records.

A revised permit application form, allowing for multiple applicants to be listed, will also be made available July 1.

Note: An application for a permit shall be made by the owner or lessee of the relevant property or the agent of either or by the Registered Design Professional, contractor or subcontractor associated with the work or any of their agents. Any and all of these may be listed on the permit application form.

If you have any questions, please contact the Records and Information Management Branch at 703-324-1895, TTY 711.

Redevelopment on single-family residential lots usually results in an increased dwelling size and impervious area, which then increases the rate and volume of runoff. A major area where redevelopment is occurring is in older suburban neighborhoods that were developed decades ago, prior to the establishment of effective stormwater management regulations. Watersheds in which these older neighborhoods are located have been well documented to be substantially degraded by the high volumes and velocities of uncontrolled runoff. The county and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) have amassed considerable data showing that many county streams are in an impaired condition with eroded, incised and unstable stream banks, deficient instream and riparian habitat, and poor biological health. There is a well-established relationship between the increase in watershed impervious area and declining stream condition and health. The cumulative amount of relatively small impervious area added from each individual infill development and redevelopment impacts the watershed hydrology, further stressing already impaired streams.

For non-concentrated runoff conditions (e.g. sheet flow) the Public Facilities Manual (PFM) states that an owner or developer may continue to discharge stormwater into a lower lying property if the peak rate after development does not exceed the pre-development peak rate (PFM Section 6-0202.6). An increase in peak rate or volume caused by the development is only allowed if there is no adverse impact (e.g., soil erosion, sedimentation, duration of ponding water, inadequate overland relief) on the lower lying property, as determined by the Director; or does not aggravate any existing drainage problem or cause a new drainage problem on the downstream property.

Please be reminded that for residential infill lots discharging runoff as sheet flow, unless there is no increase in the peak rate of the 10-year frequency storm runoff after development or redevelopment, the Director may require onsite stormwater management measures to control water quantity. Owners may continue to purchase offsite nutrient credits to satisfy water quality requirements only.

If you have any questions, please contact the Site Development & Inspections Division at 703-324-1720, TTY 711.

Occasionally, an applicant desires to begin a project in advance of final site plan approval. Under PFM 2-0203.4 et. seq., the Director can approve a Rough Grading Plan (RGP) to allow early grading and utility work to begin on the site while the review/approval of the full site plan remains ongoing, even for plans that do not qualify for modified processing. The process below details the steps necessary to parse out appropriate items to seek approval for a project-related RGP.

  1. A site plan shall be submitted, reviewed by all reviewing agencies (i.e. Wastewater, Water Authority, Urban Forest Management Division (UFMD), VDOT, etc., if necessary) and official first-submission comments will be generated.
  2. Once first-submission site plan comments have been received from all reviewing agencies, the submitting engineer shall contact the site reviewer and schedule a post-submission meeting.
  3. In the post-submission meeting, the submitting engineer and County staff shall agree on how all first-submission comments shall be resolved and shall discuss the scope of the RGP (i.e. extent of clearing and grading, demolition, installation of underground utilities, foundations, storm water management, etc.).
  4. After the post-submission meeting with Site Development and Inspections Division (SDID) staff, the submitting engineer shall submit a letter requesting the Director's approval of the rough grading plan prior to site plan approval. The letter shall cite any hardship or unusual circumstances as justification of the request and describe the scope of the RGP and may be submitted via email (PFM 2-0203.4B (1)).
  5. Complete the RGP Processing Review Checklist and submit it with the RGP. The checklist is located at: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/landdevelopment/land-development-services-forms

If you have any questions, please contact the SDID Division at: 703-324-1720, TTY 711.

Curb and gutter, sidewalk and driveway entrance standards for use in townhouse developments are set forth in Section 7-0502 and Plate 4-7 of the Public Facilities Manual. To assist in streamlining plan preparation and review, designers are requested to consider these standards early in the design process and ensure that construction plans are prepared in accordance with the following minimum standards:

  • Optional curb and gutter types are CG-6, CG-6R, CG-7 and CG-7R.
  • A 2-foot minimum grass or concrete strip is required between the back of curb and gutter and the edge of sidewalk as depicted on Plate 4-7.
  • CG-3 spill curb may be permitted.
  • A ¾-inch lip is required across the frontage of the driveway at the gutter pan.
  • Curb cut, driveway, and transition details (such as the location of transitions between different curb types and between curbs and curb inlets), must be provided on the plans to demonstrate constructability.

In addition, designers are encouraged to provide a minimum 4-foot traversable width where the sidewalk crosses the proposed townhouse driveway in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards CG-9B and CG-9D.

If the density and layout of a development are more urban in nature and there are feasibility issues, a modification of these standards may be approvable. Coordination with the Site Development & Inspections Division on proposed modifications prior to finalizing a layout (i.e., prior to the first plan submission) is recommended. Any request must be accompanied by details and supporting data including, but not limited to design computations that demonstrate that the depth of the 10-year storm in the gutter will not exceed the height of the modified curb. If the sidewalk is modified to be adjacent to the back of curb, the sidewalk's minimum width should be 6 feet (refer to VDOT CG-9B and CG-9D).

If you have any questions, please contact the Site Development & Inspections Division at 703-324-1720, TTY 711.

The 3/15/07 DPWES Letter to Industry (07-08), titled “Exemption of Water Well Drilling from County Code Chapter 104” is hereby clarified as follows: as stated in paragraph 3, in order for “access to and drilling of the well by the exploratory and support equipment” to be determined as an exception from the definition of land disturbing activity in Chapter 104 - Erosion and Sedimentation Control, the sum total of clearing and grading, stone placement, and other land disturbing activities shall not exceed 2,500 square feet; however, an access route through forested or non-forested land of up to 20 foot width with a turnaround area which is mowed/”brush-hogged” to a height of no less than 6 inches for drill rig access and drilling will not be considered as land disturbing activity.

All other provisions of the DPWES Letter to Industry 07-08 shall remain in effect at this time.

For more information on water well drilling for residential uses, please see Letter to Industry #07-08, Exemption of Water Well Drilling from County Code Chapter 104.

If you have any questions regarding the erosion and sediment control requirements for projects consisting exclusively of water well drilling for a residential use, please contact the Site and Technical Services Branch at 703?222?0801, Option 1, TTY 711.

Effective immediately, when revising previously approved Infill Grading Plans (INF), Rough Grading Plans (RGP), and Conservation Plans (CON) engineers may now submit only the revised pages for review in lieu of submitting the original plan in its entirety.  A letter of transmittal shall accompany each revision submitted for review and approval describing the revision in detail and its general location. All revisions shall be clearly circled in red.

Revisions to previously approved INF plan submissions must still include the Fairfax County Infill Lot Grading Plan Checklist and use the Fairfax County Infill Lot Grading Plan coversheet.

If you have any questions, please contact the Site Development and Inspections Division at 703-324-1720, TTY 711.

Effective immediately, engineers now have two options for submitting Infill Grading Plans (INF) requiring a Geotechnical “Soils” Report (SR) for review.  Option 1 allows an engineer to submit separate INF and SRs.  Once a SR is reviewed and approved, the submitting engineer can submit the INF plan for review and approval.  The approximate total review time for Option 1 (not including engineer’s response time) is 8 weeks. 

Option 2 (the new option) allows an engineer to submit the INF plan and SR together for concurrent review.  However, if the SR cannot be approved as submitted, the INF plan review will be halted until the SR is resubmitted, reviewed and approved.  The approximate total review time for Option 2 (not including engineer’s response time) is 5 weeks. 

Please note that Chapter 107 “Problem Soils” of the Code of the County of Fairfax requires the submission of a SR when construction and grading work is proposed in an area containing problem soils, and for other areas where special soil or water conditions are potentially injurious (as stipulated in Chapter 107-1-3 “Geotechnical Report Required”).  Guidelines for preparing SRs can be found in Article 4 “Geotechnical Guidelines” of the Fairfax County Public Facilities Manual (PFM).  Article 4 of the PFM can be found online.

The two submission options for INFs requiring a SR are summarized below:

  1. SEPARATE INF AND SR SUBMITTALS (SR APPROVAL REQUIRED BEFORE INF SUBMITTAL)
    • SR is submitted, reviewed and approved or disapproved in 4 weeks.
    • INF is submitted to LDS with geotechnical requirements incorporated in the INF plan. SDID will review the INF (approximately 21 days) and will either, approve, disapprove with comments, or work with the submitting engineer to allow inserts, if there are minimal review comments to be addressed. If inserts are required, INF review time will be approximately 28 days.
    • Total time approximately 8 weeks, not including engineer’s response time.
  2. CONCURRENT INF AND SR SUBMITTALS 
    • The submitting engineer must provide multiple copies of INF, two (2) copies of the SR and proposed grading plan for the SR to SAC for submittal (same day at the same time). Review time for SR and INF will be approximately 4 weeks.
    • SDID will concurrently review the INF and SR, providing comments to the submitting engineer; however, the INF cannot be approved until the SR is approved and the submitting engineer formally inserts the SR and geotechnical requirements into the INF plan
    • Total time approximately 5 weeks, not including engineer’s response time.  If the INF is disapproved due to the disapproval of the SR, the revised SR must be submitted separately as an SR submission and approved prior to second INF submission and the geotechnical requirements developed from the approved SR must be incorporated into the revised INF plan.

 If you have any questions please contact the appropriate Site Development and Inspection Division Branch Chief at 703-324-1720, TTY 711.

Effective immediately: Infill Grading Plans (INFs) proposing the construction, expansion, or modification of a conventional or Alternative On-site Sewage System (OASS) that requires Fairfax County Health Department (HD) approval pursuant to Chapter 68.1 (Individual Sewage Disposal Facilities) of the Code of the County of Fairfax and 12VAC5-610 or 613 of the Virginia Administrative Code, may be submitted to the Site Application Center (SAC), either separately or concurrently for review by the HD and the Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES), Land Development Services (LDS), Site Development and Inspections Division (SDID) as described below:

  1. Submitting Engineer may submit plans either:
    1. SEPARATELY – The submitting engineer submits copies of the INF and Septic/AOSS design directly to HD for review and approval.  Upon approval by the HD, the engineer will formally submit copies of the INF to LDS; submittal shall include HD approval.  SDID will review the INF and will either approve, disapprove with comments, or work with the submitting engineer to allow inserts if there are minimal review comments to address.
    2. CONCURRENTLY – The submitting engineer must submit two (2) copies of INF and Septic/AOSS design directly to HD, and submit multiple copies of the INF to SAC.  SDID will concurrently review the INF and provide comments to the submitting engineer; however, the INF cannot be approved until the submitting engineer formally inserts HD approval into the INF plan.  At the end of the 21-day review cycle the INF will be disapproved if HD approval has not been obtained and provided to SDID.
  2. Under either option in Item 1.
    • HD reviews the INF and ultimately approves it for grading and location of Septic/AOSS, within 14 days. The submitting engineer is responsible for informing SDID and providing confirmation of the HD approval.
    • If the HD disapproves the Septic/AOSS, then SDID will either approve, disapprove with comments, or work with the submitting engineer to allow inserts if there are minimal review comments to address, within the 21-day review cycle. 
  3. If the INF is disapproved by SDID, the submitting engineer must address SDID comments, obtain HD approval and incorporate the approval into the INF plan, and resubmit the INF to SAC, together with the appropriate resubmission fee. SDID confirm comments have been addressed and confirm approved HD grading plan sheet matches proposed grading plan within the INF. LDS can issue the Land Disturbance Permit without having the Well Permit or Septic/AOSS design approval.
  4. Septic/AOSS design review and revisions continue with HD until approved.  The construction, expansion or modification of a sewage disposal system cannot commence without the written construction permit from the HD, which authorizes the construction or modification (see 12VAC5-610-240 et seq.). Conditions may be imposed on the issuance of any permit and no sewage disposal system shall be constructed, modified or operated in violation of these conditions. 

 If you have any questions please contact the appropriate Site Development and Inspection Division Branch Chief at 703-324-1720, TTY 711.

In an effort to accommodate developer timelines and other related constraints associated with occupying a high-rise building, Land Development Services has established a policy to allow incremental or phased occupancy.  The policy’s underlying absolute is the need to provide safe access to and from the building (both vehicular and pedestrian) as well as a safe environment inside the facility for occupants. 

Developed in conjunction with the Fire Marshal’s Office, the Building Official and the Director of Site Development and Inspection Division (SDID), the policy was envisioned to be used for high-rise structures, but the general tenets described within may be applicable to any project where incremental occupancy would be appropriate.

To learn more, read the policy or contact Building Plan Review by email or by telephone at 703-222-0114, TTY 711.

Because of the constraints that would be placed on property owners' use of their land and difficulties in post-construction monitoring and enforcement on single-family residential lots, Land Development Services is making the following changes effective immediately:

Reforestation (PFM § 6-1311). Director approval, as required by the Public Facilities Manual (PFM), will not be granted for the use of reforestation as a stormwater management BMP on individual buildable single-family detached lots in subdivisions (PFM § 6-1311.2A). However, reforested areas may still be used on such lots with 70% of the reforested area treated as forest/open space for computational credit in the Virginia Runoff Reduction Method Worksheet. Computational credit for 70% of the forested area may also be applied to individual single-family detached residential lots that are not part of a bonded subdivision. The reforested area does not need to be within a restrictive easement (PFM § 6-1311.3B) to receive computational credit.

Simple Rooftop Disconnection (PFM § 6-1312). Director approval, as required by the PFM, will not be granted for the use of simple rooftop disconnection as a stormwater management BMP on individual buildable single-family detached lots. Water from downspouts may be directed to an alternative runoff reduction practice on individual buildable single-family detached lots pursuant to PFM § 6-1312.2.B. The flow path leading to the alternative practice is not required to be within a restrictive easement.

Soil Compost Amendments (PFM § 6-1314). Director approval, as required by the PFM, will not be granted for the use of soil compost amendments as a stormwater management BMP on individual buildable single-family detached lots in subdivisions. Soil compost amendments may still be used to restore the porosity of disturbed soils with 70% of the area treated as forest/open space for computational credit pursuant to PFM § 6-1314.2C. If only used for computational credit, areas of compost amended soils are not required to be within a restrictive easement (PFM § 6-1314.2C)

The above does not prevent an owner from installing these practices, at his own discretion, on individual buildable single-family detached lots for purposes other than meeting the Stormwater Management Ordinance water quality control requirements.

If you have any questions, please contact the Site Development and Inspection Division at 703-324-1720, TTY 711.

As of Dec. 1, 2014, all infill lot grading plans submitted to Land Development Services (LDS) must go through a quality control review. A pilot version of this new program started on Sept. 2, 2014, and will remain in effect until Dec. 1, 2014. Once submitted to LDS, these plans will be routed to the Engineers & Surveyors Institute (ESI) who will complete the quality control review on behalf of Fairfax County. The new process is in response to industry requests to shorten review periods for these plans.

All infill lot grading plan (INF) submissions must include the Fairfax County Infill Lot Grading Plan Checklist and use the Fairfax County Infill Lot Grading Plan coversheet. The checklist and the coversheet files can be found at https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/landdevelopment/land-development-services-forms.

ESI will review each submittal for conformance with the checklist. Some checklist items have been identified as 'fatal flaws' or critical items. Should one of these critical items not be provided, the plan will be deemed unacceptable and returned to the submitting engineer.

An overview of the new process follows:

  1. The submitting engineer delivers nine (9) copies of the plan, the review fee and one copy of the Infill Lot Grading Plan Checklist to the Site and Addressing Center (SAC) in the Herrity Building, 12055 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax, VA. After assigning an INF number, the plan is sent to ESI.
  2. ESI reviews the plan within one business day using the checklist as a standard.
    1. If the plan is deemed acceptable and contains no 'fatal flaws,' ESI will return the submission and the checklist with ESIs review comments to SAC within one business day for acceptance processing. The package will be forwarded to the Site Development & Inspections Division (SDID) to be assigned to a reviewer.
    2. If the plan is deemed unacceptable, ESI will return the submission to SAC within one business day along with a copy of the checklist indicating the critical items along with other review comments. SAC will fail the plan, note it as 'Not Accepted' and will place the plan sets and checklist in the submitting engineer's box on the 5th floor of the Herrity Building. It should be noted that an automated message providing notification of the non-acceptance will be sent to the submitting engineer only when an email address has been provided.
      1. Before resubmitting, the engineer must revise the plan to address all 'fatal flaws' and all other comments. Nine (9) sets of the revised plan must be delivered to SAC along with a copy of the original checklist that includes the ESI comments.
      2. SAC determines whether the resubmittal is complete and, if so, accepts the plan and distributes it to SDID for assignment to a reviewer.

If you have any questions, please contact the Site Development & Inspections Division at 703-324-1720, TTY 711.

The following interpretations apply to the County’s Stormwater Ordinance.

  1. INFILL LOT GRADING PLANS.  Land-disturbing activities for single-family detached dwellings disturbing less than one acre and not part of a larger common plan of development or sale, including: additions to existing single-family detached dwellings; accessory structures to single-family detached dwellings; and demolitions of single-family detached dwellings or accessory structures are not required to obtain state VPDES permit coverage. Consequently, infill lot grading plans for such land-disturbing activities submitted for review to Land Development Services (LDS) no later than close-of-business on June 30, 2014, are considered to have met the eligibility requirements of § 124-1-11.A (Time Limits on Applicability of Approved Design Criteria) of the Stormwater Management Ordinance for acquisition of state permit coverage provided that the infill lot grading plan is complete and accepted for review, and is subsequently approved before Jan. 1, 2015. Resubmissions of infill lot grading plans that have met the June 30, 2014, submission deadline may be approved as long as the revised plan does not result in a net increase in phosphorus runoff from the land-disturbing activity as depicted on the previously submitted version of the plan. These projects shall be subject to the technical criteria of Article 5 (i.e., the current stormwater management criteria) of the ordinance pursuant to § 124-1-11.A. 

    Infill lot grading plans submitted after June 30, 2014, must demonstrate compliance with the new technical requirements of Article 4 of the ordinance.
     
  2. BMP and/or DETENTION WAIVERS. The county has determined that BMP and/or detention waivers with expiration dates that extend past July 1, 2014, shall remain valid until the expiration date or the life of the associated plan if it has been approved provided that all conditions of the waivers are met. Extensions of these waivers will not be granted unless the associated plan qualifies for grandfathering. For application of this determination for specific sites, contact the appropriate Branch Chief in the Site Development and Inspection Division.
     
  3. START OF CONSTRUCTION. The county has determined that all references to commencing or starting construction in the Stormwater Management Ordinance, Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, and the Virginia Stormwater Act shall be interpreted as the applicant/owner/developer having obtained a land disturbance permit from LDS.

For more information contact the Site Code Research and Development Branch at 703-324-1780, TTY 711.

Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Article 2-601.3, rough grading plans (RGP) that are submitted to Land Development Services must establish the intended permissible use and show proposed grading. 

If an RGP submittal is based on an accepted or approved zoning case or approved preliminary plat, then these previous submittals address the intended use and grading requirements. In these cases:

  1. The RGP must clearly identify the corresponding zoning case or preliminary plat, and any proffers/development conditions shall be included in the RGP submittal.
     
  2. PFM 2-0203.4A applies; however, as part of a pilot program to evaluate RGPs, for RGPs submitted to Land Development Services starting May 12, 2014, until the close-of-business on September 12, 2014, the following applies:
    1. Consistent with PFM 2-0203.4A, a pre-approval condition requiring the submittal of the corresponding major plan shall be established for the RGP in PAWS.
    2. The “unusual circumstances” of PFM 2-0203.4A are determined to be met.

For “by-right” cases requiring a site plan or minor site plan where the project schedule warrants a plan submittal in advance of the site plan or minor site plan, please contact the appropriate Branch Chief in the Site Development and Inspections Division at 703-324-1720, TTY 711 to determine if the requirements of PFM 2-0203.4A will be met for the site.

Fairfax Virtual Assistant