Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Falls Church debates accessory-dwelling overhaul: staff proposes by-right ADUs, commissioners push owner-occupancy and short-term-rental limits
Summary
Staff proposed allowing accessory-dwelling units (ADUs) by right in R‑1 districts with a size cap (1,000 sq ft or 50% of the primary dwelling), no new off‑street parking requirement and a graduated height tied to setbacks; commissioners urged owner‑occupancy limits, prohibitions or minimum terms for short‑term rentals, and asked staff to explore fee scaling and fiscal measures to support affordable housing.
City staff presented a revised framework and draft zoning text (TO 24‑17) to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in Falls Church’s R‑1A and R‑1B districts. The proposal would permit one ADU per lot and limit its size to the lesser of 1,000 square feet or 50% of the principal dwelling’s gross floor area; staff recommended no new off‑street parking requirement and no owner‑occupancy mandate.
Key elements of the staff proposal: Jack Trainor and other planning staff advised that detached ADUs would have height tied to setbacks (for example, up to 20 feet/1.5 stories at a 5‑foot setback and up to 25 feet/2 stories at a 10‑foot setback), would not be permitted in front yards and would require a minimum 10‑foot separation between primary and accessory walls. Existing accessory buildings constructed before Jan. 1, 2024, would be eligible for BZA special‑use permits if nonconforming. Staff estimated current utility hookup fees for a detached ADU at roughly $27,000 and extrapolated that ADU construction in Falls Church might yield roughly two new ADUs per year based on regional comparables.
Commissioner concerns and suggested changes: Commissioners raised multiple concerns: many favored an owner‑occupancy requirement consistent with Arlington and Fairfax County, worried that removing such a requirement could invite investor activity and rapid turnover; several argued ADUs should not be used as short‑term rentals and asked staff to either explicitly prohibit short‑term rental in ADUs or prioritize a companion policy process to address STR regulation. Commissioners also asked for clearer technical definitions (gross floor area, how height is measured), suggested a special‑use path for undersized lots, and urged staff to examine whether hookup fees can be scaled for accessory uses.
Affordability and fiscal linkages: Several commissioners proposed pairing ADU zoning with fiscal measures to support affordable housing—for example, directing new property‑tax revenue from added ADUs into the city’s affordable‑housing fund. Staff said they would continue refining the fiscal‑impact analysis and consider ideas to make ADUs more financially feasible for homeowners.
Next steps and timing: Staff indicated the draft ordinance and framework would be taken up by city council for first reading in late November and that planning‑commission public hearings were tentatively scheduled for March 2025. The city attorney will also review whether later restrictions on short‑term rentals could create legal exposure if ADUs are permitted now without STR limits.
Quote: "Accessory dwellings are an increasingly popular housing form that municipalities are exploring to address housing availability and diversity," Jack Trainor said, while several commissioners answered that careful programmatic limits (owner occupancy, lease-term minimums) should accompany any by‑right allowance.
Outcome: Work session only; commissioners provided multiple policy directions for staff to incorporate ahead of formal code drafting and hearings.
