Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

You seem to be making an assumption that the county won't adjust the setback. There's a good chance they will. The garage area probably could be swapped back if absolutely necessary. The foundation should already be strong enough. Even if they were start over with a narrower rebuild, the neighbor might fight them anyway, so they can't assume no legal battles either way.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

He didn't build the approved plans. The approved plans show a 8.5' setback from the property line.

Well, we'll to agree to disagree on that. I would say they followed the plan, but the plan had an error.

Regardless, I'd really love to see you try to set footers for a deck or addition just taking measurements from the property line, rather than the house.

Different Poster than the person whom you are replying to, but with regards to your last statement, if you are approaching the limits of setback, you absolutely should be taking a measurement from the property line to the area of construction (in your case a footer). This is exactly what is done in a proper pre-construction stakeout. You also reconfirm once you do the initial work to make sure it conforms so you are not fixing later in the process after more time and money has been spent. It is even more important for the owner of the addition to have done so, seeing they are acting as GC and are thus financially liable. These situations are why you hire a bonded and licensed GC. The owners would have recourse against a GC had they chose to do it themselves.

I know when there was permitted exterior hardscaping work done at my house that came to approaching setback limits, there was measurement from the property line to the edge of construction, as well as measurements from the house. The surveying costs were not insignificant, and multiple surveys done between initial, stakeouts, confirmatory, but were an important part of the process. It is incumbent to verify everything, you can't simple rely on some plans that had a significant error in it such as this.
lol

I absolutely agree. I'm astonished they weren't more worried about this. Initially I thought the addition was mostly in the same footprint, but an earlier poster noted the plans show it extends closer to the property line. If they thought they had, say, 6 extra feet, that would be one thing. But 6 inches?

I guess I'd understand a bit more if they had a shared fence, and assumed that was on the property line. Not safe, but understandable. But I don't think this is a shared fence.

But, the other poster has been claiming this was an error in construction, rather than an error in the plans. That's ridiculous. This was obviously an error when they measured for the plans. They didn't build the addition in the wrong spot.

And simply remeasuring after setting the foundation wouldn't have helped. Their problem was not getting a surveyor to find the property line, not reading the tape wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

You seem to be making an assumption that the county won't adjust the setback. There's a good chance they will. The garage area probably could be swapped back if absolutely necessary. The foundation should already be strong enough. Even if they were start over with a narrower rebuild, the neighbor might fight them anyway, so they can't assume no legal battles either way.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

He didn't build the approved plans. The approved plans show a 8.5' setback from the property line.

Well, we'll to agree to disagree on that. I would say they followed the plan, but the plan had an error.

Regardless, I'd really love to see you try to set footers for a deck or addition just taking measurements from the property line, rather than the house.

Here’s the thing: if you’re building something that is required to be a certain distance from the property line, why would you not measure the distance from the property line? It seems like a very basic, obvious thing to do and, honestly, it appears a bit foolish to have not done this very simple thing. How difficult would it have been to take a tape measure and ascertain that the foundation that was about to be poured was the correct distance from the property line?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

You seem to be making an assumption that the county won't adjust the setback. There's a good chance they will. The garage area probably could be swapped back if absolutely necessary. The foundation should already be strong enough. Even if they were start over with a narrower rebuild, the neighbor might fight them anyway, so they can't assume no legal battles either way.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

He didn't build the approved plans. The approved plans show a 8.5' setback from the property line.

Well, we'll to agree to disagree on that. I would say they followed the plan, but the plan had an error.

Regardless, I'd really love to see you try to set footers for a deck or addition just taking measurements from the property line, rather than the house.

Here’s the thing: if you’re building something that is required to be a certain distance from the property line, why would you not measure the distance from the property line? It seems like a very basic, obvious thing to do and, honestly, it appears a bit foolish to have not done this very simple thing. How difficult would it have been to take a tape measure and ascertain that the foundation that was about to be poured was the correct distance from the property line?

That would cost extra and you might not like the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

You seem to be making an assumption that the county won't adjust the setback. There's a good chance they will. The garage area probably could be swapped back if absolutely necessary. The foundation should already be strong enough. Even if they were start over with a narrower rebuild, the neighbor might fight them anyway, so they can't assume no legal battles either way.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

He didn't build the approved plans. The approved plans show a 8.5' setback from the property line.

Well, we'll to agree to disagree on that. I would say they followed the plan, but the plan had an error.

Regardless, I'd really love to see you try to set footers for a deck or addition just taking measurements from the property line, rather than the house.

Then we are back with the county sharing some liability approving plans that had errors. Not that an error by the county has anything to do with getting a special permit or variance. The county can revoke the construction permit at any time before construction completes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

You seem to be making an assumption that the county won't adjust the setback. There's a good chance they will. The garage area probably could be swapped back if absolutely necessary. The foundation should already be strong enough. Even if they were start over with a narrower rebuild, the neighbor might fight them anyway, so they can't assume no legal battles either way.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

He didn't build the approved plans. The approved plans show a 8.5' setback from the property line.

Well, we'll to agree to disagree on that. I would say they followed the plan, but the plan had an error.

Regardless, I'd really love to see you try to set footers for a deck or addition just taking measurements from the property line, rather than the house.

Different Poster than the person whom you are replying to, but with regards to your last statement, if you are approaching the limits of setback, you absolutely should be taking a measurement from the property line to the area of construction (in your case a footer). This is exactly what is done in a proper pre-construction stakeout. You also reconfirm once you do the initial work to make sure it conforms so you are not fixing later in the process after more time and money has been spent. It is even more important for the owner of the addition to have done so, seeing they are acting as GC and are thus financially liable. These situations are why you hire a bonded and licensed GC. The owners would have recourse against a GC had they chose to do it themselves.

I know when there was permitted exterior hardscaping work done at my house that came to approaching setback limits, there was measurement from the property line to the edge of construction, as well as measurements from the house. The surveying costs were not insignificant, and multiple surveys done between initial, stakeouts, confirmatory, but were an important part of the process. It is incumbent to verify everything, you can't simple rely on some plans that had a significant error in it such as this.

You sound like one of those measure twice cut once guys that is always too expensive. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

c) The proposed use, including its design and operational characteristics, must not adversely affect the use or future development of neighboring properties and must be in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. The location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls, and fences, as well as the nature and extent of screening, buffering and landscaping cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings.

^This is a big one. "cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings"

The neighbor's new view (lack of) is definitely hindering use. The shade is hindering her use for plantings and/or a garden. Her privacy is being hindered. These things impair the value of her home.

Good luck with adding solar to her home.

So, I think one of the reasons you have a very different opinion on the likelihood of a special permit being granted is that somewhere along the line you got the mistaken belief that the impacts of the non-offending aspects of a project are relevant to the decision on granting the special permit. They're not.

DP, but the homeowner will need to address the following:

The proposed use, including its design and operational characteristics, must not adversely affect the use or future development of neighboring properties and must be in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. The location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls, and fences, as well as the nature and extent of screening, buffering and landscaping cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings.

The next door neighbor could certainly argue the addition does affect the use of their property -eg the solar panels they have already invested in and were permitted for. I believe those solar panels are over their garage which is directly adjacent to the addition if I remember correctly from the images.

If the homeowner had built with the proper setback, then agreed, there is nothing the neighbor could do, offending or not.

That is also in the context of the scope of the modification. It doesn't allow you to basically relitigate the aspects that are already consistent with the zone's requirements.

Hence why I think there's a reasonably good chance it will be granted.

The garage change is probably an easy thing to reject. But it is probably also a relatively easy thing for the homeowner to revert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

You seem to be making an assumption that the county won't adjust the setback. There's a good chance they will. The garage area probably could be swapped back if absolutely necessary. The foundation should already be strong enough. Even if they were start over with a narrower rebuild, the neighbor might fight them anyway, so they can't assume no legal battles either way.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

DP, but imagine if the homeowner had taken his neighbors into consideration at all and decided to build something in line with the size and scope of other additions in the neighborhood that didn’t block all the sunlight from the home next to him. I guarantee no one would be other there measuring inches to the property line and writing letters to the county.

And sure, there’s no legal requirement to consider those around you when you add on to your home. But life tends to go easier if you’re thoughtful of our neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

c) The proposed use, including its design and operational characteristics, must not adversely affect the use or future development of neighboring properties and must be in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. The location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls, and fences, as well as the nature and extent of screening, buffering and landscaping cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings.

^This is a big one. "cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings"

The neighbor's new view (lack of) is definitely hindering use. The shade is hindering her use for plantings and/or a garden. Her privacy is being hindered. These things impair the value of her home.

Good luck with adding solar to her home.

So, I think one of the reasons you have a very different opinion on the likelihood of a special permit being granted is that somewhere along the line you got the mistaken belief that the impacts of the non-offending aspects of a project are relevant to the decision on granting the special permit. They're not.

DP, but the homeowner will need to address the following:

The proposed use, including its design and operational characteristics, must not adversely affect the use or future development of neighboring properties and must be in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. The location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls, and fences, as well as the nature and extent of screening, buffering and landscaping cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings.

The next door neighbor could certainly argue the addition does affect the use of their property -eg the solar panels they have already invested in and were permitted for. I believe those solar panels are over their garage which is directly adjacent to the addition if I remember correctly from the images.

If the homeowner had built with the proper setback, then agreed, there is nothing the neighbor could do, offending or not.

That is also in the context of the scope of the modification. It doesn't allow you to basically relitigate the aspects that are already consistent with the zone's requirements.

Hence why I think there's a reasonably good chance it will be granted.

The garage change is probably an easy thing to reject. But it is probably also a relatively easy thing for the homeowner to revert.

The BZA can absolutely account for new issues or changed circumstances, even if you had an existing or prior approved building permit, because the Special Permit process is about zoning compliance AND compatibility, not just building code, and they review against current ordinance standards and neighborhood impact, meaning new info (public input, site changes, staff concerns, other faults, etc.) can lead to denial or conditions despite prior approvals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

You seem to be making an assumption that the county won't adjust the setback. There's a good chance they will. The garage area probably could be swapped back if absolutely necessary. The foundation should already be strong enough. Even if they were start over with a narrower rebuild, the neighbor might fight them anyway, so they can't assume no legal battles either way.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

He didn't build the approved plans. The approved plans show a 8.5' setback from the property line.

Well, we'll to agree to disagree on that. I would say they followed the plan, but the plan had an error.

Regardless, I'd really love to see you try to set footers for a deck or addition just taking measurements from the property line, rather than the house.

Here’s the thing: if you’re building something that is required to be a certain distance from the property line, why would you not measure the distance from the property line? It seems like a very basic, obvious thing to do and, honestly, it appears a bit foolish to have not done this very simple thing. How difficult would it have been to take a tape measure and ascertain that the foundation that was about to be poured was the correct distance from the property line?

They might have done that. Presumably they would have repeated the same mistake of thinking the fence was on the property line.

This was certainly a huge mistake by the homeowner. But it was a mistake made when they made the plans. It wasn't an error in where the builders placed the addition, which is what a previous poster claimed. That poster just didn't want to concede the point that the county approved the plan that contained the error.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

You seem to be making an assumption that the county won't adjust the setback. There's a good chance they will. The garage area probably could be swapped back if absolutely necessary. The foundation should already be strong enough. Even if they were start over with a narrower rebuild, the neighbor might fight them anyway, so they can't assume no legal battles either way.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

He didn't build the approved plans. The approved plans show a 8.5' setback from the property line.

Well, we'll to agree to disagree on that. I would say they followed the plan, but the plan had an error.

Regardless, I'd really love to see you try to set footers for a deck or addition just taking measurements from the property line, rather than the house.

Then we are back with the county sharing some liability approving plans that had errors. Not that an error by the county has anything to do with getting a special permit or variance. The county can revoke the construction permit at any time before construction completes.

I don’t agree here. The plans cited distance from the property line for the setback, which would have been correct if the owner had measured from the actual property line before pouring the foundation.

Unfortunately, the owner thought the fence was the property line, which was an incorrect assumption. That is how the wall ended up being over the setback line. If he had used the property line, which was what was used in the submitted plans, it would have been fine. The setback is off because the owner made the mistake of assuming the fence marked the property line.

This mistake was not part of the approved plans. The plans that the county approved did not include the mistake the owner made by assuming the fence was on the property line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

c) The proposed use, including its design and operational characteristics, must not adversely affect the use or future development of neighboring properties and must be in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. The location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls, and fences, as well as the nature and extent of screening, buffering and landscaping cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings.

^This is a big one. "cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings"

The neighbor's new view (lack of) is definitely hindering use. The shade is hindering her use for plantings and/or a garden. Her privacy is being hindered. These things impair the value of her home.

Good luck with adding solar to her home.

So, I think one of the reasons you have a very different opinion on the likelihood of a special permit being granted is that somewhere along the line you got the mistaken belief that the impacts of the non-offending aspects of a project are relevant to the decision on granting the special permit. They're not.

DP, but the homeowner will need to address the following:

The proposed use, including its design and operational characteristics, must not adversely affect the use or future development of neighboring properties and must be in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. The location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls, and fences, as well as the nature and extent of screening, buffering and landscaping cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings.

The next door neighbor could certainly argue the addition does affect the use of their property -eg the solar panels they have already invested in and were permitted for. I believe those solar panels are over their garage which is directly adjacent to the addition if I remember correctly from the images.

If the homeowner had built with the proper setback, then agreed, there is nothing the neighbor could do, offending or not.

That is also in the context of the scope of the modification. It doesn't allow you to basically relitigate the aspects that are already consistent with the zone's requirements.

Hence why I think there's a reasonably good chance it will be granted.

The garage change is probably an easy thing to reject. But it is probably also a relatively easy thing for the homeowner to revert.

The BZA can absolutely account for new issues or changed circumstances, even if you had an existing or prior approved building permit, because the Special Permit process is about zoning compliance AND compatibility, not just building code, and they review against current ordinance standards and neighborhood impact, meaning new info (public input, site changes, staff concerns, other faults, etc.) can lead to denial or conditions despite prior approvals.

The height and design aren't new issues. Based on the fact that anyone could build an addition with a similar design, it is clearly compatible. You just don't like it, which is your prerogative, but not a basis to oppose or reject a permit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

You seem to be making an assumption that the county won't adjust the setback. There's a good chance they will. The garage area probably could be swapped back if absolutely necessary. The foundation should already be strong enough. Even if they were start over with a narrower rebuild, the neighbor might fight them anyway, so they can't assume no legal battles either way.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

He didn't build the approved plans. The approved plans show a 8.5' setback from the property line.

Well, we'll to agree to disagree on that. I would say they followed the plan, but the plan had an error.

Regardless, I'd really love to see you try to set footers for a deck or addition just taking measurements from the property line, rather than the house.

Here’s the thing: if you’re building something that is required to be a certain distance from the property line, why would you not measure the distance from the property line? It seems like a very basic, obvious thing to do and, honestly, it appears a bit foolish to have not done this very simple thing. How difficult would it have been to take a tape measure and ascertain that the foundation that was about to be poured was the correct distance from the property line?

They might have done that. Presumably they would have repeated the same mistake of thinking the fence was on the property line.

This was certainly a huge mistake by the homeowner. But it was a mistake made when they made the plans. It wasn't an error in where the builders placed the addition, which is what a previous poster claimed. That poster just didn't want to concede the point that the county approved the plan that contained the error.

The plans submitted to the county asserted that the side wall would be 8.5 feet from the property line, not the fence line. Had the homeowner followed the approved plans and measured from the actual property line, there would be no setback issue here.

This is the homeowner’s mistake by not getting a survey and measuring, measuring, and measuring again before allowing any concrete to be poured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

You seem to be making an assumption that the county won't adjust the setback. There's a good chance they will. The garage area probably could be swapped back if absolutely necessary. The foundation should already be strong enough. Even if they were start over with a narrower rebuild, the neighbor might fight them anyway, so they can't assume no legal battles either way.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

He didn't build the approved plans. The approved plans show a 8.5' setback from the property line.

Well, we'll to agree to disagree on that. I would say they followed the plan, but the plan had an error.

Regardless, I'd really love to see you try to set footers for a deck or addition just taking measurements from the property line, rather than the house.

Then we are back with the county sharing some liability approving plans that had errors. Not that an error by the county has anything to do with getting a special permit or variance. The county can revoke the construction permit at any time before construction completes.

I don’t agree here. The plans cited distance from the property line for the setback, which would have been correct if the owner had measured from the actual property line before pouring the foundation.

Unfortunately, the owner thought the fence was the property line, which was an incorrect assumption. That is how the wall ended up being over the setback line. If he had used the property line, which was what was used in the submitted plans, it would have been fine. The setback is off because the owner made the mistake of assuming the fence marked the property line.

This mistake was not part of the approved plans. The plans that the county approved did not include the mistake the owner made by assuming the fence was on the property line.

Let's put it this way: could the approved plan have been built? No, it couldn't. There simply isn't enough space. Obviously the mistake was in the approved plan.

There wasn't an obvious basis for the county to deny the plan, nor is it likely practical for the county to conduct their own surveys. It would be one thing to argue that the county couldn't have practically caught the error, but there obviously was an error in the plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

You seem to be making an assumption that the county won't adjust the setback. There's a good chance they will. The garage area probably could be swapped back if absolutely necessary. The foundation should already be strong enough. Even if they were start over with a narrower rebuild, the neighbor might fight them anyway, so they can't assume no legal battles either way.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

He didn't build the approved plans. The approved plans show a 8.5' setback from the property line.

Well, we'll to agree to disagree on that. I would say they followed the plan, but the plan had an error.

Regardless, I'd really love to see you try to set footers for a deck or addition just taking measurements from the property line, rather than the house.

Here’s the thing: if you’re building something that is required to be a certain distance from the property line, why would you not measure the distance from the property line? It seems like a very basic, obvious thing to do and, honestly, it appears a bit foolish to have not done this very simple thing. How difficult would it have been to take a tape measure and ascertain that the foundation that was about to be poured was the correct distance from the property line?

They might have done that. Presumably they would have repeated the same mistake of thinking the fence was on the property line.

This was certainly a huge mistake by the homeowner. But it was a mistake made when they made the plans. It wasn't an error in where the builders placed the addition, which is what a previous poster claimed. That poster just didn't want to concede the point that the county approved the plan that contained the error.

The plans submitted to the county asserted that the side wall would be 8.5 feet from the property line, not the fence line. Had the homeowner followed the approved plans and measured from the actual property line, there would be no setback issue here.

This is the homeowner’s mistake by not getting a survey and measuring, measuring, and measuring again before allowing any concrete to be poured.

Putting practicalities aside, let's say they laid out the foundation using the property line as the reference point. They still wouldn't have been able to follow the plans. They wouldn't have had enough space between the house and the far end of the foundation for the addition specified in the plan.

Because, again, the problem was in the plans themselves, not in the construction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

You seem to be making an assumption that the county won't adjust the setback. There's a good chance they will. The garage area probably could be swapped back if absolutely necessary. The foundation should already be strong enough. Even if they were start over with a narrower rebuild, the neighbor might fight them anyway, so they can't assume no legal battles either way.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

He didn't build the approved plans. The approved plans show a 8.5' setback from the property line.

Well, we'll to agree to disagree on that. I would say they followed the plan, but the plan had an error.

Regardless, I'd really love to see you try to set footers for a deck or addition just taking measurements from the property line, rather than the house.

Here’s the thing: if you’re building something that is required to be a certain distance from the property line, why would you not measure the distance from the property line? It seems like a very basic, obvious thing to do and, honestly, it appears a bit foolish to have not done this very simple thing. How difficult would it have been to take a tape measure and ascertain that the foundation that was about to be poured was the correct distance from the property line?

They might have done that. Presumably they would have repeated the same mistake of thinking the fence was on the property line.

This was certainly a huge mistake by the homeowner. But it was a mistake made when they made the plans. It wasn't an error in where the builders placed the addition, which is what a previous poster claimed. That poster just didn't want to concede the point that the county approved the plan that contained the error.

The plans submitted to the county asserted that the side wall would be 8.5 feet from the property line, not the fence line. Had the homeowner followed the approved plans and measured from the actual property line, there would be no setback issue here.

This is the homeowner’s mistake by not getting a survey and measuring, measuring, and measuring again before allowing any concrete to be poured.

Putting practicalities aside, let's say they laid out the foundation using the property line as the reference point. They still wouldn't have been able to follow the plans. They wouldn't have had enough space between the house and the far end of the foundation for the addition specified in the plan.

Because, again, the problem was in the plans themselves, not in the construction.

You really want this argument to work, but the fact is, if the homeowner had had a survey done before beginning construction he would have been able to build the addition within the correct setback. The homeowner did not do his due diligence, and that is why he is in this very expensive situation now.