Significant divisions remain as Falls Church City Council members approach final-decision time to enact rules regulating accessory-dwelling units.
“There are so many concerns” still to be worked through, Council member Marybeth Connelly said at a March 10 work session on the topic.
That meeting was another step on the way to potential approval of an ADU ordinance next month. It will culminate a year’s worth of work on the contentious topic.
The work session underscored divisions among Council members on several issues, including the maximum size of accessory units and whether the property owner should be required to live on the site.
The draft proposal calls for limiting the interior size of an ADU to 1,000 square feet or 50% of the main house’s size, whichever is smaller.
About 16% of the homes in residential zoning districts across Falls Church are less than 1,800 square feet, according to city data. Under the draft proposal, owners of those properties would not be able to build to the maximum ADU size of 1,000 square feet.
Several Council members expressed concern that a firm 50% limit on secondary properties would discourage owners of smaller homes from adding an accessory unit.
“It feels punitive,” Council member Debora Schantz-Hiscott said of the impact on owners of smaller properties.
Those property owners might instead opt to sell their homes to a developer, with the house being razed and replaced with the type of property often described as a McMansion.
“I want to [incentivize] people to keep small houses and build an even smaller house, rather than tear it down … and build one large one,” Schantz-Hiscott said.
That view picked up the support of Connelly, Council member Justine Underhill and Mayor Letty Hardi.
“We do want to encourage the preservation of small houses,” Hardi acknowledged.
However, Council member Erin Flynn said maintaining proportionality between the main house and the smaller accessory unit is an important consideration.
“There’s a question of when it crosses the line from being an accessory dwelling to you now have a two-dwelling lot,” she said.
“You don’t want two dwelling units that are 1,000 square feet,” Hardi added.
Council members directed planning and zoning staff to come up with options. “I would be OK if it said it could go up to 750 square feet, something like that,” Connelly said.
The question of an owner-occupancy requirement also roiled the meeting. Council members Flynn and David Snyder voiced the most concern about the impact of allowing both a main home and ADU to be rented out.
“It’s changing the character and commercializing single-family zones,” Flynn said.
“Eliminating owner occupancy would dramatically change the whole purpose of this effort,” Snyder added. “I’m still concerned about this one, where it takes us.”
Schantz-Hiscott countered that, to her, it “feels prejudicial” to impose an owner-occupancy requirement.
“We have plenty of evidence of renters of homes, renters of apartments who have been very engaged,” she said. “I don’t think being a renter is a negative thing.”
Connelly said fears that developers would swoop in, buy up single-family lots, add an ADU and then rent both properties seem unlikely to play out in real-world conditions.
“It’s much easier for a developer and a builder, who need to make their money back right away, to build a very large house,” she said.
Council members received advice from the city attorney, Sally Gillette, that imposing an owner-occupancy requirement could put them on questionable legal grounds given what she termed “ambiguity” in state law.
Snyder countered that several nearby Northern Virginia localities impose owner-occupancy requirements, and have not faced a challenge.
“Other jurisdictions that are significantly larger than us are retaining that requirement,” he said. “Obviously they’ve reviewed the legality.”
The Falls Church Planning Commission made its final recommendations on March 5. Final City Council consideration has been placed on its April 14 agenda.
