Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're free to argue all you want that this is a self-inflicted hardship. Maybe a court would agree, but it isn't as clear cut as you seem to think. It also isn't likely to be an issue, because even self-inflicted hardships don't bar special permits.

Anyone can argue whatever they want, but the facts are the facts. The county has the plans that were submitted that show that the homeowner included an 8.5 foot setback. Now a part of the wall goes over the setback. Something went wrong at some point, but the county did not approve a wall that is in part over the setback line.

No one disputes that. But that isn't the issue being discussed.

That is exactly what is being discussed here. And at least one person keeps disputing it.

There's no great mystery. They obviously measured to the wrong spot when they made the plans.

The plans show distance from the property line. It looks like the homeowner measured from the fence, not the property line, when the foundation was being poured. So the homeowner measured from a different line than the line that was on the plans. The county approved distance from the property line, not the distance from the fence, the line the homeowner apparently used by mistake.

That's not how it works. The reference point when you lay out the foundation is going to be the house, not the fence. You sound ridiculous.

The setback is the distance from the wall to the property line. The property line is the reference for the setback- the wall needs to be a minimum of 8 feet from the property line. A post many pages back noted that the homeowner was under the impression that the property line was the same as the fence line and that is how the the wall ended up being over the setback, ie, a little over 7.5 feet from the property line, not the 8.5 feet that the plans submitted showed.

[Anonymous]

The public records show that the application filed on 12/11 to amend the plan include the name of a “risk management solutions” company.

What does this kind of a company do? Why does a homeowner hire someone to manage risk for a permit application like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're free to argue all you want that this is a self-inflicted hardship. Maybe a court would agree, but it isn't as clear cut as you seem to think. It also isn't likely to be an issue, because even self-inflicted hardships don't bar special permits.

Anyone can argue whatever they want, but the facts are the facts. The county has the plans that were submitted that show that the homeowner included an 8.5 foot setback. Now a part of the wall goes over the setback. Something went wrong at some point, but the county did not approve a wall that is in part over the setback line.

No one disputes that. But that isn't the issue being discussed.

That is exactly what is being discussed here. And at least one person keeps disputing it.

There's no great mystery. They obviously measured to the wrong spot when they made the plans.

The plans show distance from the property line. It looks like the homeowner measured from the fence, not the property line, when the foundation was being poured. So the homeowner measured from a different line than the line that was on the plans. The county approved distance from the property line, not the distance from the fence, the line the homeowner apparently used by mistake.

That's not how it works. The reference point when you lay out the foundation is going to be the house, not the fence. You sound ridiculous.

The setback is the distance from the wall to the property line. The property line is the reference for the setback- the wall needs to be a minimum of 8 feet from the property line. A post many pages back noted that the homeowner was under the impression that the property line was the same as the fence line and that is how the the wall ended up being over the setback, ie, a little over 7.5 feet from the property line, not the 8.5 feet that the plans submitted showed.

Right. That's a mistake in the measurement in the plans, not a mistake in the placement of the foundation.

I think you forgot what you had been trying to argue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The public records show that the application filed on 12/11 to amend the plan include the name of a “risk management solutions” company.

What does this kind of a company do? Why does a homeowner hire someone to manage risk for a permit application like this?

Presumably they're lawyers. I don't know why that would surprise you. Wouldn't you wany a lawyer if you were in this situation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public records show that the application filed on 12/11 to amend the plan include the name of a “risk management solutions” company.

What does this kind of a company do? Why does a homeowner hire someone to manage risk for a permit application like this?

Presumably they're lawyers. I don't know why that would surprise you. Wouldn't you wany a lawyer if you were in this situation?

The description on the company’s website doesn’t mention anything about being lawyers.

You’re right, a lawyer would make sense for dealing with the stop work order. This company appears to be involved with the application to change windows and floor plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public records show that the application filed on 12/11 to amend the plan include the name of a “risk management solutions” company.

What does this kind of a company do? Why does a homeowner hire someone to manage risk for a permit application like this?

Presumably they're lawyers. I don't know why that would surprise you. Wouldn't you wany a lawyer if you were in this situation?

The description on the company’s website doesn’t mention anything about being lawyers.

You’re right, a lawyer would make sense for dealing with the stop work order. This company appears to be involved with the application to change windows and floor plans.

what's the full name of the company?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except the homeowner is the GC. The homeowner was responsible for the plans.

For these purposes, it doesn't matter. It would still be or not be a "self-inflicted hardship" for the purposes of seeking a variance (although conceivably the GC could be legally liable for the damages). The point is basically that the county picked up some responsibility by approving the plan.

Logically, then no homeowner needs to do a survey. Draw up your plans with your best guess, submit them to county and wait for the county to do a survey. If the county doesn't catch your mistake, build as fast as you can.

The public records for the original application indicate that the side setback is 8.5 feet for the plan submitted. The required setback is 8 feet, so if the application showed 8.5 there was no error by the county in approving the plan. If that is the case, the setback error would have taken place after the plan was approved, not before. So during the construction phase, not the approval phase.

Probably because someone measured from the fence and not the property boundary. The government should have caught this error according to some posters.

How would the government catch the error? Don’t they just examine the materials present in the application itself? Do they typically go out and examine the site itself when reviewing an application?

Some seem to argue that because the county approved the plan, the county now bears some responsibility for the error. It's no longer "self-inflicted" because the county said it was OK.

Basically, yes. This issue is now coming up as an enforcement action after the homeowner relied in good faith on the approved permit. They can argue vested-rights protections against retroactive enforcement, and that they're not unilaterally responsible for the error.

It doesn't look like a slam-dunk argument, but it is a significant different scenario than the precedent that puts tight limitations on variances. Which is part of the reason why they'd almost certainly seek a special permit instead of a variance.

This interpretation encourages builders to "push the boundaries" hoping that the county doesn't look to closely or perform a survey.

https://www.gfrlaw.com/what-we-do/insights/erroneously-issued-building-permit-causes-protracted-legal-proceedings

From the link…”You build your house in accordance with the approved plans and the building permit.”

That’s the heart of the issue. The homeowner has not built the addition in accordance with the approved plans. The link doesn’t match the situation at hand.

The distance required is 8 feet from the property line.

The plans said it would be 8.5 feet from the property line (6 inches farther than the 8 feet required)

The foundation was laid 6 inches past the property line.

This is a full foot difference between the plans and reality.

Building 12 inches from where the plans indicated is not a tiny mistake or mismeasurement.

12 inches is a very conscious and deliberate choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're free to argue all you want that this is a self-inflicted hardship. Maybe a court would agree, but it isn't as clear cut as you seem to think. It also isn't likely to be an issue, because even self-inflicted hardships don't bar special permits.

A full foot difference is not an innocent oversight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except the homeowner is the GC. The homeowner was responsible for the plans.

For these purposes, it doesn't matter. It would still be or not be a "self-inflicted hardship" for the purposes of seeking a variance (although conceivably the GC could be legally liable for the damages). The point is basically that the county picked up some responsibility by approving the plan.

Logically, then no homeowner needs to do a survey. Draw up your plans with your best guess, submit them to county and wait for the county to do a survey. If the county doesn't catch your mistake, build as fast as you can.

The public records for the original application indicate that the side setback is 8.5 feet for the plan submitted. The required setback is 8 feet, so if the application showed 8.5 there was no error by the county in approving the plan. If that is the case, the setback error would have taken place after the plan was approved, not before. So during the construction phase, not the approval phase.

Probably because someone measured from the fence and not the property boundary. The government should have caught this error according to some posters.

How would the government catch the error? Don’t they just examine the materials present in the application itself? Do they typically go out and examine the site itself when reviewing an application?

Some seem to argue that because the county approved the plan, the county now bears some responsibility for the error. It's no longer "self-inflicted" because the county said it was OK.

Basically, yes. This issue is now coming up as an enforcement action after the homeowner relied in good faith on the approved permit. They can argue vested-rights protections against retroactive enforcement, and that they're not unilaterally responsible for the error.

It doesn't look like a slam-dunk argument, but it is a significant different scenario than the precedent that puts tight limitations on variances. Which is part of the reason why they'd almost certainly seek a special permit instead of a variance.

This interpretation encourages builders to "push the boundaries" hoping that the county doesn't look to closely or perform a survey.

https://www.gfrlaw.com/what-we-do/insights/erroneously-issued-building-permit-causes-protracted-legal-proceedings

From the link…”You build your house in accordance with the approved plans and the building permit.”

That’s the heart of the issue. The homeowner has not built the addition in accordance with the approved plans. The link doesn’t match the situation at hand.

The distance required is 8 feet from the property line.

The plans said it would be 8.5 feet from the property line (6 inches farther than the 8 feet required)

The foundation was laid 6 inches past the property line.

This is a full foot difference between the plans and reality.

Building 12 inches from where the plans indicated is not a tiny mistake or mismeasurement.

12 inches is a very conscious and deliberate choice.

The foundation was laid where the plans indicated. It was obviously intended to be next to the rest of the house. The plans themselves contained the error in the form of the measurement.

You're free to believe that wasn't an error and that they they knew the property line was in a different place when they drew the plans. Personally, I think that's unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except the homeowner is the GC. The homeowner was responsible for the plans.

For these purposes, it doesn't matter. It would still be or not be a "self-inflicted hardship" for the purposes of seeking a variance (although conceivably the GC could be legally liable for the damages). The point is basically that the county picked up some responsibility by approving the plan.

Logically, then no homeowner needs to do a survey. Draw up your plans with your best guess, submit them to county and wait for the county to do a survey. If the county doesn't catch your mistake, build as fast as you can.

The public records for the original application indicate that the side setback is 8.5 feet for the plan submitted. The required setback is 8 feet, so if the application showed 8.5 there was no error by the county in approving the plan. If that is the case, the setback error would have taken place after the plan was approved, not before. So during the construction phase, not the approval phase.

Probably because someone measured from the fence and not the property boundary. The government should have caught this error according to some posters.

How would the government catch the error? Don’t they just examine the materials present in the application itself? Do they typically go out and examine the site itself when reviewing an application?

Some seem to argue that because the county approved the plan, the county now bears some responsibility for the error. It's no longer "self-inflicted" because the county said it was OK.

Basically, yes. This issue is now coming up as an enforcement action after the homeowner relied in good faith on the approved permit. They can argue vested-rights protections against retroactive enforcement, and that they're not unilaterally responsible for the error.

It doesn't look like a slam-dunk argument, but it is a significant different scenario than the precedent that puts tight limitations on variances. Which is part of the reason why they'd almost certainly seek a special permit instead of a variance.

This interpretation encourages builders to "push the boundaries" hoping that the county doesn't look to closely or perform a survey.

https://www.gfrlaw.com/what-we-do/insights/erroneously-issued-building-permit-causes-protracted-legal-proceedings

From the link…”You build your house in accordance with the approved plans and the building permit.”

That’s the heart of the issue. The homeowner has not built the addition in accordance with the approved plans. The link doesn’t match the situation at hand.

.

12 inches is a very conscious and deliberate choice.

In this case I think it’s a mistake, not a deliberate choice. The homeowner is serving as their own general contractor, and they just have no clue what they’re doing and are in way over their heads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except the homeowner is the GC. The homeowner was responsible for the plans.

For these purposes, it doesn't matter. It would still be or not be a "self-inflicted hardship" for the purposes of seeking a variance (although conceivably the GC could be legally liable for the damages). The point is basically that the county picked up some responsibility by approving the plan.

Logically, then no homeowner needs to do a survey. Draw up your plans with your best guess, submit them to county and wait for the county to do a survey. If the county doesn't catch your mistake, build as fast as you can.

The public records for the original application indicate that the side setback is 8.5 feet for the plan submitted. The required setback is 8 feet, so if the application showed 8.5 there was no error by the county in approving the plan. If that is the case, the setback error would have taken place after the plan was approved, not before. So during the construction phase, not the approval phase.

Probably because someone measured from the fence and not the property boundary. The government should have caught this error according to some posters.

How would the government catch the error? Don’t they just examine the materials present in the application itself? Do they typically go out and examine the site itself when reviewing an application?

Some seem to argue that because the county approved the plan, the county now bears some responsibility for the error. It's no longer "self-inflicted" because the county said it was OK.

Basically, yes. This issue is now coming up as an enforcement action after the homeowner relied in good faith on the approved permit. They can argue vested-rights protections against retroactive enforcement, and that they're not unilaterally responsible for the error.

It doesn't look like a slam-dunk argument, but it is a significant different scenario than the precedent that puts tight limitations on variances. Which is part of the reason why they'd almost certainly seek a special permit instead of a variance.

This interpretation encourages builders to "push the boundaries" hoping that the county doesn't look to closely or perform a survey.

https://www.gfrlaw.com/what-we-do/insights/erroneously-issued-building-permit-causes-protracted-legal-proceedings

From the link…”You build your house in accordance with the approved plans and the building permit.”

That’s the heart of the issue. The homeowner has not built the addition in accordance with the approved plans. The link doesn’t match the situation at hand.

.

12 inches is a very conscious and deliberate choice.

In this case I think it’s a mistake, not a deliberate choice. The homeowner is serving as their own general contractor, and they just have no clue what they’re doing and are in way over their heads.

Assuming the drawing was accurate, the width of the addition would now be a foot wider. Personally, I would have been a bit surprised when my addition suddenly widened by a foot during construction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except the homeowner is the GC. The homeowner was responsible for the plans.

For these purposes, it doesn't matter. It would still be or not be a "self-inflicted hardship" for the purposes of seeking a variance (although conceivably the GC could be legally liable for the damages). The point is basically that the county picked up some responsibility by approving the plan.

Logically, then no homeowner needs to do a survey. Draw up your plans with your best guess, submit them to county and wait for the county to do a survey. If the county doesn't catch your mistake, build as fast as you can.

The public records for the original application indicate that the side setback is 8.5 feet for the plan submitted. The required setback is 8 feet, so if the application showed 8.5 there was no error by the county in approving the plan. If that is the case, the setback error would have taken place after the plan was approved, not before. So during the construction phase, not the approval phase.

Probably because someone measured from the fence and not the property boundary. The government should have caught this error according to some posters.

How would the government catch the error? Don’t they just examine the materials present in the application itself? Do they typically go out and examine the site itself when reviewing an application?

Some seem to argue that because the county approved the plan, the county now bears some responsibility for the error. It's no longer "self-inflicted" because the county said it was OK.

Basically, yes. This issue is now coming up as an enforcement action after the homeowner relied in good faith on the approved permit. They can argue vested-rights protections against retroactive enforcement, and that they're not unilaterally responsible for the error.

It doesn't look like a slam-dunk argument, but it is a significant different scenario than the precedent that puts tight limitations on variances. Which is part of the reason why they'd almost certainly seek a special permit instead of a variance.

This interpretation encourages builders to "push the boundaries" hoping that the county doesn't look to closely or perform a survey.

https://www.gfrlaw.com/what-we-do/insights/erroneously-issued-building-permit-causes-protracted-legal-proceedings

From the link…”You build your house in accordance with the approved plans and the building permit.”

That’s the heart of the issue. The homeowner has not built the addition in accordance with the approved plans. The link doesn’t match the situation at hand.

.

12 inches is a very conscious and deliberate choice.

In this case I think it’s a mistake, not a deliberate choice. The homeowner is serving as their own general contractor, and they just have no clue what they’re doing and are in way over their heads.

Assuming the drawing was accurate, the width of the addition would now be a foot wider. Personally, I would have been a bit surprised when my addition suddenly widened by a foot during construction.

You're embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The public records show that the application filed on 12/11 to amend the plan include the name of a “risk management solutions” company.

What does this kind of a company do? Why does a homeowner hire someone to manage risk for a permit application like this?

I see online where a building permit amendment was filed on Dec 11. I don’t see where there is a risk management company listed.

The amendment still answers the question of “is the property owner acting as the contractor for the project?” as yes. The question about do you have a Fairfax county Business, Professional, and Occupational license (BPOL) is marked no. A temporary BPOL is marked no. Amendment does indicate if a BPOL exemption would be appropriate and that question is marked yes. Agent to certify exemption is Norman Soto Perez.

Description of changes in amendment are for changes to exterior windows and interior layout on 1st floor, 2nd floor, and 3rd floor.

Interesting that the owner is more interested in proceeding with changes the layout versus resolving the setback issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public records show that the application filed on 12/11 to amend the plan include the name of a “risk management solutions” company.

What does this kind of a company do? Why does a homeowner hire someone to manage risk for a permit application like this?

I see online where a building permit amendment was filed on Dec 11. I don’t see where there is a risk management company listed.

The amendment still answers the question of “is the property owner acting as the contractor for the project?” as yes. The question about do you have a Fairfax county Business, Professional, and Occupational license (BPOL) is marked no. A temporary BPOL is marked no. Amendment does indicate if a BPOL exemption would be appropriate and that question is marked yes. Agent to certify exemption is Norman Soto Perez.

Description of changes in amendment are for changes to exterior windows and interior layout on 1st floor, 2nd floor, and 3rd floor.

Interesting that the owner is more interested in proceeding with changes the layout versus resolving the setback issue.

Would applications for special permits appear in the same place?

Different people will probably be working on different aspects, with some pieces being more complicated than others. I don't think the order applications necessarily means much. But I think this strongly implies the owner will be seeking a special permit on the setback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public records show that the application filed on 12/11 to amend the plan include the name of a “risk management solutions” company.

What does this kind of a company do? Why does a homeowner hire someone to manage risk for a permit application like this?

I see online where a building permit amendment was filed on Dec 11. I don’t see where there is a risk management company listed.

The amendment still answers the question of “is the property owner acting as the contractor for the project?” as yes. The question about do you have a Fairfax county Business, Professional, and Occupational license (BPOL) is marked no. A temporary BPOL is marked no. Amendment does indicate if a BPOL exemption would be appropriate and that question is marked yes. Agent to certify exemption is Norman Soto Perez.

Description of changes in amendment are for changes to exterior windows and interior layout on 1st floor, 2nd floor, and 3rd floor.

Interesting that the owner is more interested in proceeding with changes the layout versus resolving the setback issue.

The agent is listed as VP on the website of a risk management company.