Falls Church’s review zoning changes Allowing freestanding accessory dwelling units in single-family neighborhoods creates sharp contrasts.

on Monday, November 4 City Council working meetingSome on the board argued the proposal would be a win for local homeowners.

During the discussion, which continued after 11 p.m., Mayor Letty Hardi said allowing ADUs would “help give people other options for what they can do with their land.”

But at least one Council member remains unconvinced.

Council member David Snyder said moving forward too quickly would amount to “generosity” on the part of developers “without fully understanding what the impact on the community will actually be.”

Snyder repeatedly returned to his concerns, suggesting that staff presentations were swayed in favor of moving the ADU proposal forward without providing any explanation or even acknowledging potential downsides.

He said allowing additional housing on single-family properties “will create stress, produce stormwater, and create other demands on our already burdened infrastructure.”

Perhaps believing he might not have the votes to ultimately prevail on the Council, Snyder tried a different tack at one point, saying the issue was so monumental that a public referendum might be necessary.

The work session occurred with the expectation that Council members would formally submit the ADU proposal for public review; The action regarding this is planned to be held on November 25. timeline suggested by staffThe final vote will be held in the first half of 2025.

Many issues were discussed during the discussions held during the working session. Some dealt with the physical impacts of additional housing: lot coverage, height, setbacks, tree cover, parking requirements. Others included occupancy limits, what zoning districts they should be located in and whether units would be available for short-term rentals.

Snyder wasn’t the only one raising red flags. Her colleague Erin Flynn said the community’s concerns were not fully addressed in the staff recommendation and that only a “very small portion of the community” has engaged with the issue to date.

Council member Marybeth Connelly said the low interest in outreach efforts to date cannot be due to truly broad-based community concerns about ADUs.

“I just wonder if (only) 25 people show up for the meetings,” he said.

“The rest of the process enables greater participation,” Connelly said. “People will have that opportunity in the next few months.”

It was a view echoed by Council member Justine Underhill. “There will be many points where people can step in and get their questions answered when needed,” he said.

Falls Church’s larger neighbors — fairfax And arlington districts and city alexandria -They are ahead of Little City in considering ADUs and passing regulations allowing them.

City officials have suggested that the number of ADU projects in Falls Church will be only a handful per year, based on experience in those areas, particularly in Arlington. Snyder expressed skepticism about this prediction.

As the debate among elected officials shows, debates about accessory housing units generally fall into two categories: supporters argue that it provides opportunities for property owners and can create more housing stock, while opponents criticize it as a rush to urbanization that comes with unintended consequences. .

Hardi said Council members will rely in part on Planning Commission members to review the details in the coming months. “They will have very heated discussions,” he said.

This issue was one of several issues discussed during the meeting. special election campaign For an open seat on the City Council, as candidates Laura Downs and John Murphy say caution had to be taken.

Before Monday’s discussion began, most Council members and City Manager Wyatt Shields had to read conflict of interest disclosures stating that they own property in single-family neighborhoods and therefore could directly or indirectly benefit from any zoning changes.

Each said they could consider the issue “fairly, objectively and in the public interest” and saw no need to recuse themselves from participating in the debate or final vote.