Planning commission opens detailed work session on accessory-dwelling ordinance; owner-occupancy and enforcement emerge as flashpoints

Falls Church City planning commissioners held an extended work session Dec. 4 on proposed amendments to the accessory-dwelling (ADU) ordinance, a council-referred package that staff said is intended to increase housing options while balancing neighborhood character.

Staff outlined a proposed schedule: a public listening session with liaisons from other boards and commissions on Jan. 15, a final Planning Commission markup Feb. 5, a Planning Commission public hearing on March 5, and City Council final consideration in April; Council has requested the commission’s recommendation by March 21.

On substance, staff said Council’s draft includes: a prohibition on short-term rentals in ADUs; no owner-occupancy requirement in the text referred by Council; clarification of the ADU definition to distinguish dwellings from accessory structures; allowance of interior ADUs in RM districts by special use permit (no detached forms in RM); continued compliance with existing stormwater and grading thresholds (2,500 sq ft disturbance trigger); permitting one ADU per lot; and gross floor area limits set as the lesser of 50% of the primary dwelling or 1,000 sq ft.

Staff cited an "eligible-lot" analysis using GIS: of roughly 2,400 single-family lots in R1A and R1B districts, about 56 percent have at least approximately 300 sq ft available under current lot-coverage maximums, which staff used as a baseline for reasonable detached footprints.

Commissioners raised a number of practical and policy questions. On practical concerns, they asked whether owners could park ADU-related vehicles on front-yard grass without paving, how addressing and whether a separate utility connection would trigger a separate postal address, how tree-canopy measurements will be handled if trees are removed, and how enforcement will detect prohibited short-term rentals (for example, listings on commercial platforms). Staff said they would research and return with definitive answers.

On policy, several commissioners urged reinstating an owner-occupancy requirement to avoid investor-driven conversions and protect neighborhood character; others pushed for clearer definitions to avoid loopholes (for example, whether a microwave or a full stove constitutes a "kitchen"). Commissioners debated dimensional rules—setback and height combinations for detached ADUs—and whether to require replacement parking if a garage conversion removes existing on-site parking.

Several commissioners recommended revisiting whether RC or RTH zones should be considered in future amendments, asked for proportionality in setbacks versus primary-dwelling height, and suggested the Planning Commission may ask the Board of Zoning Appeals to review certain undersized-lot proposals. Commissioners generally supported the staff timeline but asked staff to provide additional technical analysis (tree-canopy measurement method, address/utility policy, enforcement approach, parking replacement) before final markup.

Staff said short-term rental activity in unpermitted ADUs will remain an enforcement challenge and reiterated that the referred draft explicitly prohibits short-term rental use in permitted ADUs; the ordinance identifies ADUs through a certificate-of-occupancy and related permitting steps.

Commissioners did not take formal votes on code language at the Dec. 4 work session and directed staff to gather the requested technical follow-up and to consider scheduling additional review in January to incorporate board and public input.