The Falls Church City Council has reached a compromise on accessory dwelling units, allowing for by-right development on most single-family parcels.
The unanimous 7-0 vote followed public discussions with the public last summer and nearly a year of further deliberation. Most public speakers showed up in support of the decision, although some controversy remains on issues such as setbacks.
“Not everyone’s perfectly happy, but I think we’re in a good place,” City Council member Marybeth Connelly said on Monday.
ADUs are ancillary properties on single-family lots that include provisions for living, sleeping, eating/cooking and sanitation for one family. The current policy has “gone through many iterations,” City Manager Wyatt Shields said.
“I’m happy where we’ve landed,” Council member Erin Flynn said as the final vote approached.
Even Council member David Snyder, who throughout the process voiced concerns about the impact of ADUs on residential neighborhoods, opted to support the measure.
“There was a serious effort to find compromise — to find a middle ground,” he said. “A genuine effort to listen to all the citizens.”
ADUs have been allowed on many of the approximately 2,400 residential parcels in Falls Church, but typically only if the property owner applied for and received a special-use permit. The new ordinance removes that requirement for most residential property.
Residents weigh in one last time
As the ordinance-development process rolled on over the past year, only limited opposition to the concept materialized.
Public-comment speakers expressed differences on some issues, like setback requirements, but most generally were supportive of the proposal at this week’s meeting.
“There’s no need to delay any further,” local resident Marc Cloutier told Council members.
The final ordinance represents “a reasonable, modest and balanced option” for homeowners, said Robin Ramey, another local resident who spoke at the meeting.
The feeling was not unanimous, however, either at the April 14 meeting or during the policy’s crafting.
One resident who spoke out strongly against the measure — Jennifer Veale — said opening the door to more accessory units constitutes a “slap in the face to homeowners and residents who value the beauty of a backyard.”
Veale called approving what she termed a one-size-fits-all policy “mind-boggling,” and said it was being pushed by a small cabal of community leaders.
“Certain council members are acting like bullies,” Veale said.
On the contentious issue of setbacks, Council members decided against a proposed five-foot buffer in favor of eight to 10 feet from the property line, depending on the height of the accessory unit.
Local resident Gene Gresko was among those asking Council members for wider than five-foot setbacks.
Such a close proximity to a lot line would be an intrusion on the privacy of neighbors, said Gresko, who called the final decision of 8 to 10 feet “a good compromise.”
Property owners still have the ability to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to seek a waiver from the longer setback distances.
What else the ordinance says
Other provisions of the new ordinance:
- The height of accessory units will be limited to 1.5 stories or 20 feet, whichever is less.
- The interior space of the unit will be no more than 50% of the size of the primary home, or no more than 700 square feet when the primary home is 1,400 square feet or less.
- No more than four people can live in the unit.
- Units cannot be placed in front yards.
- Short-term rentals are prohibited.
- There are no additional parking requirements associated with adding an accessory unit.
Tackling another contentious issue — an owner-occupancy requirement — the ordinance takes a middle ground.
Under its provisions, the owner of a property must be using the dwelling as their primary residence at the time the building permit and certificate of occupancy are issued.
An owner-occupancy exception is carved out in the ordinance for future development, when the principal dwelling and accessory dwelling are built at the same time.
The new ordinance also addresses existing accessory units: Those who already have them on their property, but do not meet the newly adopted regulations, can go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for one-time special-use permits to be grandfathered in.
City officials anticipate a relatively small number of property owners to add ADUs, based on the experience of neighboring localities. On estimate pegs the likely number at fewer than a half-dozen per year.
Supporters view the new ordinance as an opportunity to retain smaller-scale housing on lots that otherwise might be razed to make way for McMansion-style development.
The accessory-dwelling ordinance gives property owners “a gentler option to add a small unit rather than just tearing down a modest sized home to build something bigger,” Ramey said.
