(Picture Above: Notice on the City’s Accessory Dwelling webpage.)

Summary

From its release in February to March 6, 2025, 227 people responded to the City’s online accessory dwelling (AD) survey questionnaire, the first time staff have received feedback from so many people.

This questionnaire was based on the provisions given First Reading by the City Council at its November 25^th, 2024 meeting. The current proposal includes several revisions.

Responses showed that the community is split on every aspect of the proposed AD code changes. The respondents strongly disagreed with:

the lack of an owner occupancy requirement,
the heights allowed, and
the setbacks of 5 ft and 10ft.

It is not clear how these data will be used as the results have been described as “not a statistically representative sample or intended to provide information of statistical relevance.”

Background

The accessory dwelling (AD) questionnaire was developed to engage more residents in discussing the proposed zoning changes. Over the past year, City staff have held six community open houses on ADs (July, September 2024, and January 2025), however these events were not well attended. Comments made at those meetings are reported by the Pulse here.

To follow up, City staff implemented this online questionnaire on Survey Monkey and advertised it in the City’s Focus e-Newsletter in February 2025. In addition, more than 3,000 postcards providing a link to the questionnaire were mailed to residents of R-1A, R-1B and R-M districts. Note that this questionnaire was based on the provisions given First Reading by Council at its November 25, 2024, meeting. The current proposal includes several revisions.

The first summary of responses to the questionnaire was presented to the Planning Commission at its March 5, 2025, meeting and was based on 215 survey participants as of February 24. Subsequently, several additional form letters provided by Falls Church Forward in support of the AD zoning changes were sent to the City Council, and additional questionnaire responses brought the total to 227 for the City Council meeting on March 10, 2025, where the survey results were again presented. Although public sentiments were raised at the Planning Commission, there was no active discussion of the questionnaire results at either meeting.

“The City wants to know your thoughts” but ….

At the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Sharon Friedlander attempted to discuss the degree of public concerns expressed in the online survey, saying, “I think that was the first time that we were seeing people actually saying, ‘This is how I feel about it.’ Even though they’re not physically sitting here, it’s important that we recognize that our community is pretty split on this item.”

But Chair Andrea Caumont quickly interjected, “I just want to remind us that it’s an opt-in survey and so you can’t really take those comments and assume that’s a scientific poll of the community.”

For the Council work session on March 10, City staff removed the percentage for and against the AD proposal elements on the summary charts and added the following caveat on several pages: “Note: The purpose of this form is for community input. The information is not a statistically representative sample or intended to provide information of statistical relevance.”

The official City website on accessory dwelling updates continues to include a live link to the questionnaire as a “Feedback Opportunity”, stating that “The City wants to know your thoughts on the proposed updates to its accessory dwelling regulations. This form covers the regulations given First Reading by Council.” However, it also states “This information is not a representative sample or intended to provide information of statistical relevance,” making it unclear how the information will be used to tailor the proposed code, if it is used at all.

The Accessory Dwelling Questionnaire

The City’s questionnaire focused on nine elements of the proposed AD code as proposed at First Reading. For each element, e.g. maximum floor area, the responder is asked if he/she agreed or disagreed with the proposed code for that element. Space was also provided for responders to enter free form comments at the end of each question. Responders can skip any question and comments are optional. The questionnaire can be seen at the beginning of this report.

(The code has since changed significantly. See Pulse post Planning Commission Wrestles with Owner Occupancy, Size, and Setbacks for Accessory Dwellings, February 22, 2025.)

Overview of results

At the March 10, 2025, City Council meeting, staff provided statistics and comments received from 227 responses to the online questionnaire, collected through March 6. The results show that the respondents were divided on every element of the proposed code. Responders also submitted hundreds of comments on individual questions.

Only three elements of the code received strong support:

maintaining the status quo on lot coverage;
no short-term rentals in ADs and
conversion of existing structures to ADs.

Respondents’ strongest disagreements were with:

the lack of owner occupancy requirement,
the height allowed, and
the setbacks.

The Pulse generated the graphs below from these data. If a responder skipped a question, i.e. no response was selected, the response is marked as “Undecided”. All comments were collected regardless of whether the responder chose to select a response, i.e. agree or disagree.

Summary of the Accessory Dwelling Survey responses

1. Location: Allow AD in residential districts:

Respondents were evenly split with respect to allowing accessory dwellings on residential lots (R-1A, R-1B and R-M). Some questioned the need for the proposed code or disagreed with allowing detached ADs by right, while others were glad for the ability to house family members.

2. Maximum floor area

Slightly more respondents (49%) agreed that ADs should be no more than 1,000 sq ft or 50% of the main house area, whichever is smaller. Those who disagreed (45%) were concerned about the impacts of increasing overcrowding and density on the character of the neighborhood, traffic and parking.

3. Maintain existing lot coverage regulations

66% of respondents supported the proposal to maintain the current lot coverage requirements of 25%, with no more than 35% impervious cover and a tree canopy of 20% in 10 years. This strong support cited concerns of environmental sustainability, especially tree canopy and stormwater management. Several comments addressed the ability of the City to enforce these regulations.

4. No off-street parking requirement

Respondents were evenly split on not requiring additional off-street parking. Some said there was insufficient street parking and others pointed out that the AD might remove existing off-street parking. Supporters said it would promote walkable communities.

5. No Short-term rental

Disallowing short-term rental received the strongest support (70%). Comments voiced concerns about noise, strangers and effects on neighborhood character. Some were open to limiting the short-term rentals to a certain number of days per year. People also wondered how this rule would be enforced.

6. No Owner Occupancy requirement

There was strong opposition to the lack of an owner occupancy requirement, in effect permitting an absent property owner to rent out both the main house and the AD. The current code requires owner occupancy for internal or attached ADs, wherein the owner would need to reside in either the main house or the AD. Waivers potentially could be requested by homeowners for a limited period, e.g. foreign service assignments.

52% of the respondents disagreed with the proposed provision while 37% agreed, and 11% were undecided. The opposition cited concerns about absentee landlords, properties becoming rental investments and adverse effects on the character of the neighborhood. Some of the 82 specific comments include:

“This idea is inviting trouble, including people who start buying up homes / rentals for investment purposes, driving up home prices.”

“I would like to discourage corporate ownership and management of residential property in Falls Church. I believe this will help maintain affordability and neighborly community– the first is a key reason to allow more ADUs, the second is a key part of what makes FCC special.”

“A developer’s dream. Talk about commercial use. Private equity real estate will gobble up all of the available rentals as they have in other unprotected neighborhoods.”

“Property owners shouldn’t be penalized when they have to move away for their jobs or family issues. Do not require special permission for these scenarios”.

7. Maximum heights – 20 ft for 5 ft setback; 25 ft for 10 ft setback

There was strong opposition to this element of the proposed AD code. 53% disagreed, 36% agreed and 11% were undecided. Comments cited concerns about the impact on neighboring properties, aesthetics, noise, light pollution and property values. Respondents suggested stricter regulations, limiting ADs to one story and maintaining the existing building envelope. (The provision for 25-foot heights has subsequently been dropped.)

Those that agreed with the code argued that the proposed regulations give homeowners the freedom to build an AD that suits their needs.

Here are a few of the 92 comments received for this question:

“This changes the look and feel of neighborhoods and may actually decrease home values if you live near someone that has a large ADU on their property. As a homeowner, I would not want this set-up next to me. Not only is there potential noise, light and congestion impact, but aesthetically, it degrades my neighborhood.”

“Are corner lots handled differently? What about nonconforming lots?”

“I disagree with these- our home is nearly the size of some of these – it really will change the nature of the neighborhood. Absolutely disagree with multistory units.”

“While I favor ADUs, 5 and 10 feet setbacks are not very much. We have an attached carriage house garage with a 15-foot setback and even that feels a little close.”

“A more generous height limit would allow the unit to be bigger without taking up lot area, which is especially important if the lot coverage requirements are still in place.”

8. Minimum side and rear Setbacks – 5 ft for heights of 20ft or 1 ½ stories, otherwise 10 ft.

There was strong opposition (52%) to this proposal. 37% of respondents agreed with the proposal, and 11% were undecided. Many comments focused on detached ADs and the vast majority supported larger setbacks citing concerns for neighborhood character and adverse impacts on neighboring property values. Supporters commented on the need for flexibility to allow homeowners to build ADs where they want them. Some commented on non-conforming lots and maintaining existing regulations.

Here are a few of the 82 comments on this code element:

“… the 5-foot and 10-foot setbacks are way too tight. Again, there is insufficient balance with nature, wildlife and overall aesthetics. The setback rules are crucial to maintaining the character of a neighborhood physically, aesthetically and psychologically. We risk becoming another Brooklyn or Queens or Ballston. It’s just not worth it – we shouldn’t sacrifice the natural character of Falls Church (trees, vegetation, wildlife).”

“All ADU should require a minimum 10 ft setback. The setback regulations for primary dwellings makes Falls Church the place it is and maintains green space and keeps our residential lots from feeling crowded.”

“There should be no setback requirements – maximize flexibility.”

9. Permit the conversion of existing structures

The proposal includes allowing nonconforming structures to be converted by seeking approval through a Special Use Permit (SUP).

There was strong support (52% vs. 36%) for this proposal. Commenters repeated their concern about height and setbacks, and how the conversion might affect the neighboring properties. Many supported the SUP process for conversion.

Comments on the overall AD code

Survey respondents provided hundreds of comments. Comments were solicited in response to each code element, but those in reply to Questions 1 and 10, labelled Q1 and Q10, solicited more general comments on the overall AD code.

To provide a view of the sentiment of comments on the AD code generally, the Pulse categorized comments from these two questions as support, conditional opposition, opposition, or undecided. A comment is categorized as conditional opposition if it refers to the need for a more restrictive zoning code. If a comment expresses disagreement due to the lack of permissiveness – for example, the City should not require Special Use Permits for R-M districts – that would be considered support for the AD code.

Not all comments can be categorized. We acknowledge that this categorization is subject to interpretation, and different readers may categorize comments differently. 83 comments for Q1 and 99 comments for Q10 were categorized. The results are shown below. Comments were more negative in Q10 compared to Q1, possibly indicating that respondents became more critical after reviewing the various elements of the code.

Accessory Dwellings Survey Comments graphs

Top concerns

The leading concern expressed by respondents was the impact on the character of the neighborhood from increased density and urbanization. This is consistent with the 2025 Community Survey that rated the small-town feel and community of the City among the top three features. Some examples include:

“Accessory Dwellings would change the very nature our Little City and increases urban density making Falls Church an undesirable place to live and not why we moved here.”

“We left Arlington because of the density and moved to Falls Church for a more pleasant environment. You seem intent on turning Falls Church into Arlington.”

“The biggest concerns are parking, aesthetics, impact to neighboring properties, and the look and feel of this charming city that we worked really hard to buy a home in. It is completely losing its character for absolutely no reason.”

Many commented on the housing issue, some saying that ADs would provide much needed housing and enable housing for family members. Others expressed skepticism that ADs would provide any affordable housing.

“The only people who benefit from this are the FCC residents who want to make money by building rental units on their property. I don’t see how this helps our community.”

“Wonderful! As a senior I could stay on my property enjoying friendships, community engagement, great walking opportunities to shops and parks while I rented out my original house, which would help pay for property taxes.”

“Does not offer path to ownership and does not offer affordable housing.”

Respondents were very concerned about the impact on schools, services and infrastructure, and the environment (stormwater, flooding, trees, greenspace). These comments often referred to the existing inadequacy of roads, stormwater, and sewer infrastructure and environmental problems that would be exacerbated by ADs.

“I know it’s hard to put a price tag on the value of trees, wildlife, yards for kids to play in, clean air, peaceful neighborhoods, etc. – but that doesn’t mean the ‘highest and best use’ of land is more development.”

“This will lead to more overcrowding of the schools and even more cars on our streets. We have not fully absorbed the new condo units on Broad Street, which are already contributing to these problems.”

“In the years I’ve lived in the city, I’ve witnessed serious flooding along Park Street, Spring Street and in the neighborhood behind Oak Street Elementary. Older growth trees absorb more water. Can our sanitary and rainwater sewers handle more? Can our schools and roads?”

“They will only add to the ever-growing congestion issues facing our city and I believe they will have a major negative quality of life impact to all residents.”

Comments on detached ADs

Detached ADs were a major source of concern. Comments focused on their adverse impacts on neighboring properties, damage to trees, and stormwater runoff.

“When a person purchases their home, they do not expect the rules to change later. The backyard of a home is its sanctuary. Having a neighbor placing a building that looms over that backyard is just wrong and unfair.”

“Agree with internal, garage conversion, and bump out. Detached – Not one size fits all. [An AD] should be located as close as possible to [the] primary residence to reduce impacts on surrounding properties.”

“Seems like this is all setup to benefit the AD property owners with little thought or consideration for neighbors that will be negatively impacted. Who wants a 2-story AD sitting a few feet from their property looming over their backyard. It’s not one backyard but probably multiples in many cases. Can 3-story privacy fences be built?”

Who are the respondents?

Data on the demographics of 215 respondents were in the earlier Planning Commission meeting package but were not updated for all 227 respondents. About 82% of respondents provided demographic information.