Falls Church holds extended work session on accessory dwellings; council goes into closed session for legal advice

City staff and council discussed proposed changes to Falls Church’s zoning code intended to permit and regulate accessory dwellings (ADUs) during a work session on Jan. 27. The session included a detailed staff presentation, multiple public comments and a subsequent council closed session to receive legal advice on the city’s legislative authority to regulate ADUs.

What staff presented Planning staffer Jack Treanor summarized updates to the draft ordinance since first reading in November. Changes included a clarified definition of an accessory dwelling unit to require living area and at least one bedroom and one bathroom in most detached ADUs; a proposed occupancy cap of three persons for an ADU; an option to set windows above one story at least 10 feet from neighboring property lines; and a restated policy that structural additions to nonconforming buildings converting to ADUs would not be permitted to expand the original footprint beyond current nonconformity rules without special approval. Treanor told council staff had identified roughly 31 existing detached structures that “closely resemble” ADUs and that a GIS analysis found about 1,500 accessory structures across R-1A and R-1B zoning districts with an average footprint of about 248 square feet.

Key policy points under discussion - Setbacks and height: Staff offered two height/setback options for detached ADUs (a 5-foot setback with up to 20-foot height or a 10-foot setback with up to 25-foot height) and presented ratio graphics comparing those allowances to existing single-family and accessory structures in R-1A and R-1B. Councilmembers and members of the public debated whether a 5-foot side/rear setback would be too small for many lots. - Occupancy limits: The draft sets an occupancy maximum of three persons for an ADU to preserve the “subordinate” nature of the accessory unit while allowing for smaller households. Councilmembers discussed that the current city zoning definition of “family” allows up to eight unrelated persons, and asked staff to consider whether the ADU cap should mirror other housing types or be different. - Addressing and utilities: Staff said requiring a separate postal address and separate utility meters could add an estimated $30,000–$40,000 in construction cost for some projects; the draft does not require separate addressing, but staff is researching options to enable separate services when desired. - Parking and site coverage: Staff clarified that the city’s existing prohibition on non-designated front-yard parking remains; single-family homes must retain at least one off-street parking space at all times. The draft does not change the city’s building coverage (25%) or impervious-surface (35%) limits; tree-canopy rules are triggered at grading plans if more than 2,500 square feet are disturbed.

Public comment highlights Residents, advocates and contractors offered a range of perspectives during public comment. Builder Michael Novotny of Backyard Homes urged that 5-foot side and rear setbacks were appropriate and said several nearby jurisdictions (Arlington, Alexandria) had demonstrated success with smaller setbacks. He said larger setbacks could make many builds financially infeasible. Resident Robin Ramey urged staff and council to reconsider a rule that would bar ADUs taller than the principal dwelling, warning that one-story houses could otherwise be prevented from having practical ADUs. Resident Matthew Cunningham supported allowing “split occupancy” sales as an avenue to finance more ADUs. Several speakers urged staff to prioritize simple permitting and to avoid creating a process so costly that only investors could use it.

Closed session for legal advice Following public comment, council moved into a closed session with the planning commission and legal counsel. The motion — recorded in the meeting minutes — stated council was convening pursuant to Virginia Code §2.2-3711(A)(8) “for consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel regarding accessory dwelling unit legislative authority.” The motion to go into closed session was made by Councilmember Flynn and seconded as recorded; the council approved the closed session by roll call. When council reconvened in open session it certified that only the exempt matters had been discussed.

No final adoption tonight City staff repeated that no council action on the ADU ordinance was requested at this meeting; the session was explicitly a work session to gather input and refine the draft. Staff noted the planning commission will hold additional work sessions and a public hearing in March; the council is scheduled for further work sessions and a final consideration date was proposed for April 14, 2025.

What council asked staff to do next Councilmembers asked staff to provide additional information on: how many substandard lots would be affected, examples of how the proposed setback/height ratios would apply in specific neighborhoods, legal implications of owner-occupancy requirements, fiscal impacts and case studies from other jurisdictions, and options for outreach and notification to all residents. Councilmembers also asked staff to consider the practical permit process and provide clear decision-support tools for applicants and reviewers.

Ending note Councilmembers on both sides said they support expanding housing choices but repeatedly emphasized the need for clear, fact-based answers on implementation, enforcement, and unintended consequences (including potential investor-driven conversions) before any final ordinance is adopted. The council’s closed-session legal consultation was limited to advice on the city’s legislative authority concerning ADUs; no legislative action was taken while the council was in closed session.