Falls Church Council adopts accessory-dwelling ordinance with setbacks, reporting and occupancy conditions

The Falls Church City Council voted 7-0 on April 14 to adopt TO24‑17, an amendment to the city zoning code that allows detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in R‑1A, R‑1B and RM districts and updates utility connection rules.

The ordinance, first discussed in public workshops last year, is designed to expand housing choices while adding new limits and post‑adoption monitoring. Council members and staff framed the action as the result of extended outreach: planning workshops, mailed postcards, commission review and multiple council work sessions.

The ordinance allows detached ADUs by right under defined size and siting rules, but council approved several amendments before final passage. The main changes adopted included: a tiered setback standard (8 feet for one‑story ADUs up to 15 feet tall; 10 feet for other detached ADUs, with the Board of Zoning Appeals able to grant a special use permit to reduce setbacks no lower than 5 feet), a reporting requirement (staff will report on ADU applications and approvals every 12 months for the first 36 months), a clarified rear‑yard coverage rule (allowing up to 50% of minimum rear yard area when an ADU is included, otherwise 30%), and an owner‑occupancy requirement tied to the timing of permit issuance (the property owner must maintain the property as their primary residence at the time the required building permit and certificate of occupancy are issued), with an explicit exemption for situations in which principal and accessory dwellings are built together as new construction.

City planning staff, led by Jack Treanor, presented technical updates to the draft ordinance ahead of the hearing, including a flat 700‑square‑foot allowance for ADUs on small principal dwellings (for principal dwellings 1,400 square feet or smaller), clarifications that existing nonconforming accessory structures may be converted only with Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approval but cannot be extended, and a 12‑month follow‑up reporting requirement for the city to monitor how the ordinance is used.

Public commenters were sharply divided at the council chambers. Supporters said ADUs will provide multigenerational housing and flexible, lower‑cost options for residents who need space for aging parents or adult children. “My mother makes less than $25 an hour … as they age, I’m pretty sure we’re going to be unable to afford anything but moving them in with me,” said Joseph Shorizzi, who urged fewer restrictions and no owner‑occupancy requirement so more units would be built.

Opponents focused on privacy, tree loss and neighborhood character. Mary Chavez, summarizing concerns from the postcard outreach and meetings, urged a 10‑foot setback to protect canopy trees and neighbor privacy, saying small setbacks could “threaten canopy trees” and “reduce stormwater protections.” Several speakers urged owner‑occupancy to limit investor purchases.

Council members described extensive one‑on‑one and group conversations before the vote. Several members noted the ordinance was a product of sustained compromise: it preserves by‑right ADU construction but adds procedural and dimensional limits and a monitoring program to reassess impacts.

Council member Flynn offered the motion to amend setback language to require 8 feet for one‑story ADUs and 10 feet for others, with BZA discretion to allow as little as 5 feet via special use permit; the amendment passed unanimously. A separate amendment to require the property owner to maintain the property as their primary residence at the time of required permit and certificate issuance — with an exemption for jointly built new principal and accessory dwellings — passed 6‑1, with Mayor Hardy voting no on that particular amendment but supporting the final ordinance.

The council also added a requirement that staff return with annual reports for the first three years after enactment to capture application volume, types of projects, and implementation issues. That reporting requirement passed unanimously.

The council adopted the ordinance after the amendment process. The final roll call on adoption was 7‑0.

What council approved is a policy framework that makes ADUs an option in most single‑family neighborhoods while reserving avenues (BZA special use permit, annual review) to address unforeseen consequences. Council members stressed they expect to revisit the ordinance as staff reports on actual permit activity and neighborhood impacts.

The adopted ordinance modifies City Code Chapter 48 (Zoning) and related sections of Chapter 42 (Utilities) to address water and sewer connections for ADUs. It also removes a subdivision‑related provision from the advertisement and will bring that item back separately.

The council asked staff to track and report common application topics, including whether applicants sought waiver from setbacks, how many applications requested reduced setbacks, and whether production levels matched staff forecasts. The reporting requirement is intended to inform council if the city should loosen or tighten rules after the initial implementation period.

The ordinance takes effect following the standard certification and publication process; staff will post implementation guidance and begin the first annual report cycle.