Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the ADU Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairfax Council signals support to remove age/disability limits for ADUs, to study detached units separately
Summary
Council members agreed to remove age/disability and outdated family-language requirements for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and directed staff to pursue a zoning-text amendment; council also asked staff to study detached ADUs later with robust community outreach and to consider parking/enforcement implications.
Eric Foreman, the city planner leading the session on accessory dwelling units, told council the city currently permits attached ADUs under limits (owner-occupancy requirement, size caps tied to the main dwelling and a two-bedroom maximum) and includes an age/ disability occupancy requirement and a family-household term that staff recommends removing.
Foreman presented three preliminary sizing options for detached ADUs (50% of the house footprint; a flat square-foot cap such as 800 sq ft; or a blended house-footprint/lot-ratio approach) and showed visual examples to illustrate neighborhood impacts. He cautioned that detached ADUs are complex and warrant extensive public input and careful standards (setbacks, height, lot coverage, tree-canopy and neighborhood compatibility).
Council members repeatedly said they support removing the age-55/disability occupancy restriction and updating the ordinance language so the ADU and primary house are counted as a single household; council asked that the family term be changed to the ordinance efinition of "household." Councilmembers expressed interest in treating attached and detached ADUs on separate timetables: quickly removing the age/disability/family language via a zoning-text amendment and conducting a broader study and outreach about detached ADUs later.
Members also raised enforcement and parking questions; staff said the current provision limiting ADU residents to two vehicles is difficult to enforce and suggested more enforceable approaches (for example a requirement for a dedicated parking space for the ADU) while cautioning that design review could strain staff capacity. Staff noted examples from nearby jurisdictions that have permitted detached ADUs and said uptake tends to be modest, in part because of construction costs.
Next steps: staff will prepare a zoning-text amendment to remove the age/disability/family language and will return to council with options and outreach plans for detached ADUs if council wishes to proceed.
