Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’re now 6 weeks into this saga. How long will it likely take for the county to make a final decision?

Months.

[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:

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.

Before construction? Does that mean you finally understand the error was in the plans?

You clearly want someone else besides the homeowner to bear responsibility for this issue, but in the end, the fact is that the homeowner made careless mistakes and submitted plans that he didn’t even follow (plans showed a garage, but the actual construction has no garage). Adding careless mistakes to conscious choices to alter the plans after approval, the homeowner did not put himself in a terribly sympathetic position here.

The homeowner is bearing the responsibility for those errors. He is now spending tens of thousands of dollars due to them. No one else is going to be paying for his mistakes. That's punishment enough.

I somehow doubt you'd have such strong feelings about a 6 inch setback encroachment if this was a single level addition. You just don't like what he's building, or his family's living situation, so you're hoping they use this as an opportunity to knock him down.

If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed. The builder invited scrutiny with his thoughtless behavior. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

Exactly, because a 6 inch encroachment into the setback doesn't have a meaningful impact. Your issue is with the height and design, not the setback.

Not what I said. I am saying that it would have gone unnoticed. The behavior of the builder attracted unwanted scrutiny, and all the errors were uncovered. I am sure there are numerous setback violations in Fairfax County that go undiscovered. However, *if* the county finds one, they all get the same treatment. Nextdoor is full of posts about people having to tear down or move sheds due to setback violations.

You said exactly that: "If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed."

The 6 inches wouldn't be noticed. People are noticing the height, which isn't in violation.

This is an addition on a house, not a shed. There's not nearly the same ability to reasonably move or rebuild this, which you surely know. Your dislike of the addition is causing you to think irrationally.

I am rational. The county investigated the site and found the setback violation. All setback violations are treated equally. He needs to get a special permit or variance. He's not likely to get it at this phase of construction.

I agree it should be treated equally. I disagree that the county would typically attempt to order a demolition/rebuild of a house over 6 inches. You're hoping that they treat this case differently because people don't like the house.

Not at all. Giving this builder an exception would create an adverse motivation for future builders to complete as much as you can so that you can claim financial hardship. The county has made people tear down sheds for setback and height violations. "It's just a shed" doesn't fly as an excuse either.

[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:

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.

Before construction? Does that mean you finally understand the error was in the plans?

You clearly want someone else besides the homeowner to bear responsibility for this issue, but in the end, the fact is that the homeowner made careless mistakes and submitted plans that he didn’t even follow (plans showed a garage, but the actual construction has no garage). Adding careless mistakes to conscious choices to alter the plans after approval, the homeowner did not put himself in a terribly sympathetic position here.

The homeowner is bearing the responsibility for those errors. He is now spending tens of thousands of dollars due to them. No one else is going to be paying for his mistakes. That's punishment enough.

I somehow doubt you'd have such strong feelings about a 6 inch setback encroachment if this was a single level addition. You just don't like what he's building, or his family's living situation, so you're hoping they use this as an opportunity to knock him down.

If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed. The builder invited scrutiny with his thoughtless behavior. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

Exactly, because a 6 inch encroachment into the setback doesn't have a meaningful impact. Your issue is with the height and design, not the setback.

Not what I said. I am saying that it would have gone unnoticed. The behavior of the builder attracted unwanted scrutiny, and all the errors were uncovered. I am sure there are numerous setback violations in Fairfax County that go undiscovered. However, *if* the county finds one, they all get the same treatment. Nextdoor is full of posts about people having to tear down or move sheds due to setback violations.

You said exactly that: "If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed."

The 6 inches wouldn't be noticed. People are noticing the height, which isn't in violation.

This is an addition on a house, not a shed. There's not nearly the same ability to reasonably move or rebuild this, which you surely know. Your dislike of the addition is causing you to think irrationally.

Not the poster you are responding to, but you are correct. This may get people doing additionas to think rationally and make sure that they fit into aesthetics so that they don't garner the wrong attention for their build. It's not required, but it's a good incentive, don't you think?

Not the previous poster, but the building code is complicated. I am relatively sure that any inspector can find enough violations on any work site to issue a stop work. And with further investigation, find violations they need a special permit or variance.

Don't piss off the county is the moral of the story.

Basically, yes. Which is why is incredibly short-sighted to suggest the BZA/county should apply the law differently because they don't like the homeowner or home.

Equal protection under the law.

Dislike of the height or design isn't relevant here. The issue is the impact of the requested modification- the 6 inch setback modification. If you can come up with a coherent and meaningful impact of those 6 inches, then go for it.

That's backward. The builder needs to prove why he needs to violate the setback. What is so unusual about his project that he needs to violate the standards everyone else is held to? That's going to be a difficult argument because he's only going to be missing a few square feet to follow the setback. Did he really really need than extra 30 sq. ft. enjoy his property? Is there some minimum room dimension he needed?

[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:

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.

Before construction? Does that mean you finally understand the error was in the plans?

You clearly want someone else besides the homeowner to bear responsibility for this issue, but in the end, the fact is that the homeowner made careless mistakes and submitted plans that he didn’t even follow (plans showed a garage, but the actual construction has no garage). Adding careless mistakes to conscious choices to alter the plans after approval, the homeowner did not put himself in a terribly sympathetic position here.

The homeowner is bearing the responsibility for those errors. He is now spending tens of thousands of dollars due to them. No one else is going to be paying for his mistakes. That's punishment enough.

I somehow doubt you'd have such strong feelings about a 6 inch setback encroachment if this was a single level addition. You just don't like what he's building, or his family's living situation, so you're hoping they use this as an opportunity to knock him down.

If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed. The builder invited scrutiny with his thoughtless behavior. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

Exactly, because a 6 inch encroachment into the setback doesn't have a meaningful impact. Your issue is with the height and design, not the setback.

Not what I said. I am saying that it would have gone unnoticed. The behavior of the builder attracted unwanted scrutiny, and all the errors were uncovered. I am sure there are numerous setback violations in Fairfax County that go undiscovered. However, *if* the county finds one, they all get the same treatment. Nextdoor is full of posts about people having to tear down or move sheds due to setback violations.

You said exactly that: "If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed."

The 6 inches wouldn't be noticed. People are noticing the height, which isn't in violation.

This is an addition on a house, not a shed. There's not nearly the same ability to reasonably move or rebuild this, which you surely know. Your dislike of the addition is causing you to think irrationally.

I am rational. The county investigated the site and found the setback violation. All setback violations are treated equally. He needs to get a special permit or variance. He's not likely to get it at this phase of construction.

I agree it should be treated equally. I disagree that the county would typically attempt to order a demolition/rebuild of a house over 6 inches. You're hoping that they treat this case differently because people don't like the house.

Not at all. Giving this builder an exception would create an adverse motivation for future builders to complete as much as you can so that you can claim financial hardship. The county has made people tear down sheds for setback and height violations. "It's just a shed" doesn't fly as an excuse either.

Then that's ultimately the source of our disagreement. You think they would go after a different homeowner with a less objectionable house over a 6 inch encroachment, so you think I'm hoping for special treatment in this case. I can't fathom that they would, so to me it looks like you're hoping for special treatment the other way.

And sheds are different. Come on. That doesn't mean they would or wouldn't treat a framed house the same way.

In practice, I suspect what apparently happened in Baltimore is the usual practice: they just don't enforce it even when they do learn of it.

[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:

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.

Before construction? Does that mean you finally understand the error was in the plans?

You clearly want someone else besides the homeowner to bear responsibility for this issue, but in the end, the fact is that the homeowner made careless mistakes and submitted plans that he didn’t even follow (plans showed a garage, but the actual construction has no garage). Adding careless mistakes to conscious choices to alter the plans after approval, the homeowner did not put himself in a terribly sympathetic position here.

The homeowner is bearing the responsibility for those errors. He is now spending tens of thousands of dollars due to them. No one else is going to be paying for his mistakes. That's punishment enough.

I somehow doubt you'd have such strong feelings about a 6 inch setback encroachment if this was a single level addition. You just don't like what he's building, or his family's living situation, so you're hoping they use this as an opportunity to knock him down.

If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed. The builder invited scrutiny with his thoughtless behavior. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

Exactly, because a 6 inch encroachment into the setback doesn't have a meaningful impact. Your issue is with the height and design, not the setback.

Not what I said. I am saying that it would have gone unnoticed. The behavior of the builder attracted unwanted scrutiny, and all the errors were uncovered. I am sure there are numerous setback violations in Fairfax County that go undiscovered. However, *if* the county finds one, they all get the same treatment. Nextdoor is full of posts about people having to tear down or move sheds due to setback violations.

You said exactly that: "If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed."

The 6 inches wouldn't be noticed. People are noticing the height, which isn't in violation.

This is an addition on a house, not a shed. There's not nearly the same ability to reasonably move or rebuild this, which you surely know. Your dislike of the addition is causing you to think irrationally.

Not the poster you are responding to, but you are correct. This may get people doing additionas to think rationally and make sure that they fit into aesthetics so that they don't garner the wrong attention for their build. It's not required, but it's a good incentive, don't you think?

Not the previous poster, but the building code is complicated. I am relatively sure that any inspector can find enough violations on any work site to issue a stop work. And with further investigation, find violations they need a special permit or variance.

Don't piss off the county is the moral of the story.

Basically, yes. Which is why is incredibly short-sighted to suggest the BZA/county should apply the law differently because they don't like the homeowner or home.

Equal protection under the law.

Dislike of the height or design isn't relevant here. The issue is the impact of the requested modification- the 6 inch setback modification. If you can come up with a coherent and meaningful impact of those 6 inches, then go for it.

That's backward. The builder needs to prove why he needs to violate the setback. What is so unusual about his project that he needs to violate the standards everyone else is held to? That's going to be a difficult argument because he's only going to be missing a few square feet to follow the setback. Did he really really need than extra 30 sq. ft. enjoy his property? Is there some minimum room dimension he needed?

That's the standard for a variance, not a special permit.

[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:

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.

Before construction? Does that mean you finally understand the error was in the plans?

You clearly want someone else besides the homeowner to bear responsibility for this issue, but in the end, the fact is that the homeowner made careless mistakes and submitted plans that he didn’t even follow (plans showed a garage, but the actual construction has no garage). Adding careless mistakes to conscious choices to alter the plans after approval, the homeowner did not put himself in a terribly sympathetic position here.

The homeowner is bearing the responsibility for those errors. He is now spending tens of thousands of dollars due to them. No one else is going to be paying for his mistakes. That's punishment enough.

I somehow doubt you'd have such strong feelings about a 6 inch setback encroachment if this was a single level addition. You just don't like what he's building, or his family's living situation, so you're hoping they use this as an opportunity to knock him down.

If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed. The builder invited scrutiny with his thoughtless behavior. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

Exactly, because a 6 inch encroachment into the setback doesn't have a meaningful impact. Your issue is with the height and design, not the setback.

Not what I said. I am saying that it would have gone unnoticed. The behavior of the builder attracted unwanted scrutiny, and all the errors were uncovered. I am sure there are numerous setback violations in Fairfax County that go undiscovered. However, *if* the county finds one, they all get the same treatment. Nextdoor is full of posts about people having to tear down or move sheds due to setback violations.

You said exactly that: "If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed."

The 6 inches wouldn't be noticed. People are noticing the height, which isn't in violation.

This is an addition on a house, not a shed. There's not nearly the same ability to reasonably move or rebuild this, which you surely know. Your dislike of the addition is causing you to think irrationally.

I am rational. The county investigated the site and found the setback violation. All setback violations are treated equally. He needs to get a special permit or variance. He's not likely to get it at this phase of construction.

I agree it should be treated equally. I disagree that the county would typically attempt to order a demolition/rebuild of a house over 6 inches. You're hoping that they treat this case differently because people don't like the house.

Not at all. Giving this builder an exception would create an adverse motivation for future builders to complete as much as you can so that you can claim financial hardship. The county has made people tear down sheds for setback and height violations. "It's just a shed" doesn't fly as an excuse either.

Then that's ultimately the source of our disagreement. You think they would go after a different homeowner with a less objectionable house over a 6 inch encroachment, so you think I'm hoping for special treatment in this case. I can't fathom that they would, so to me it looks like you're hoping for special treatment the other way.

And sheds are different. Come on. That doesn't mean they would or wouldn't treat a framed house the same way.

In practice, I suspect what apparently happened in Baltimore is the usual practice: they just don't enforce it even when they do learn of it.

Yes, the county certainly would go after you. If they find out about it, you will need to get an exception. If the county has time to investigate sheds, I am certain they are willing to look at additions.

The Baltimore case went to court over enforcement. The occupancy permit was revoked. We aren't sure of the final outcome.

[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:

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.

Before construction? Does that mean you finally understand the error was in the plans?

You clearly want someone else besides the homeowner to bear responsibility for this issue, but in the end, the fact is that the homeowner made careless mistakes and submitted plans that he didn’t even follow (plans showed a garage, but the actual construction has no garage). Adding careless mistakes to conscious choices to alter the plans after approval, the homeowner did not put himself in a terribly sympathetic position here.

The homeowner is bearing the responsibility for those errors. He is now spending tens of thousands of dollars due to them. No one else is going to be paying for his mistakes. That's punishment enough.

I somehow doubt you'd have such strong feelings about a 6 inch setback encroachment if this was a single level addition. You just don't like what he's building, or his family's living situation, so you're hoping they use this as an opportunity to knock him down.

If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed. The builder invited scrutiny with his thoughtless behavior. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

Exactly, because a 6 inch encroachment into the setback doesn't have a meaningful impact. Your issue is with the height and design, not the setback.

Not what I said. I am saying that it would have gone unnoticed. The behavior of the builder attracted unwanted scrutiny, and all the errors were uncovered. I am sure there are numerous setback violations in Fairfax County that go undiscovered. However, *if* the county finds one, they all get the same treatment. Nextdoor is full of posts about people having to tear down or move sheds due to setback violations.

You said exactly that: "If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed."

The 6 inches wouldn't be noticed. People are noticing the height, which isn't in violation.

This is an addition on a house, not a shed. There's not nearly the same ability to reasonably move or rebuild this, which you surely know. Your dislike of the addition is causing you to think irrationally.

Not the poster you are responding to, but you are correct. This may get people doing additionas to think rationally and make sure that they fit into aesthetics so that they don't garner the wrong attention for their build. It's not required, but it's a good incentive, don't you think?

Not the previous poster, but the building code is complicated. I am relatively sure that any inspector can find enough violations on any work site to issue a stop work. And with further investigation, find violations they need a special permit or variance.

Don't piss off the county is the moral of the story.

Basically, yes. Which is why is incredibly short-sighted to suggest the BZA/county should apply the law differently because they don't like the homeowner or home.

Equal protection under the law.

Dislike of the height or design isn't relevant here. The issue is the impact of the requested modification- the 6 inch setback modification. If you can come up with a coherent and meaningful impact of those 6 inches, then go for it.

That's backward. The builder needs to prove why he needs to violate the setback. What is so unusual about his project that he needs to violate the standards everyone else is held to? That's going to be a difficult argument because he's only going to be missing a few square feet to follow the setback. Did he really really need than extra 30 sq. ft. enjoy his property? Is there some minimum room dimension he needed?

That's the standard for a variance, not a special permit.

A special permit would not be my first choice. It gives the zoning board too much discretion:

(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.

[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:

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.

Before construction? Does that mean you finally understand the error was in the plans?

You clearly want someone else besides the homeowner to bear responsibility for this issue, but in the end, the fact is that the homeowner made careless mistakes and submitted plans that he didn’t even follow (plans showed a garage, but the actual construction has no garage). Adding careless mistakes to conscious choices to alter the plans after approval, the homeowner did not put himself in a terribly sympathetic position here.

The homeowner is bearing the responsibility for those errors. He is now spending tens of thousands of dollars due to them. No one else is going to be paying for his mistakes. That's punishment enough.

I somehow doubt you'd have such strong feelings about a 6 inch setback encroachment if this was a single level addition. You just don't like what he's building, or his family's living situation, so you're hoping they use this as an opportunity to knock him down.

If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed. The builder invited scrutiny with his thoughtless behavior. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

Exactly, because a 6 inch encroachment into the setback doesn't have a meaningful impact. Your issue is with the height and design, not the setback.

Not what I said. I am saying that it would have gone unnoticed. The behavior of the builder attracted unwanted scrutiny, and all the errors were uncovered. I am sure there are numerous setback violations in Fairfax County that go undiscovered. However, *if* the county finds one, they all get the same treatment. Nextdoor is full of posts about people having to tear down or move sheds due to setback violations.

You said exactly that: "If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed."

The 6 inches wouldn't be noticed. People are noticing the height, which isn't in violation.

This is an addition on a house, not a shed. There's not nearly the same ability to reasonably move or rebuild this, which you surely know. Your dislike of the addition is causing you to think irrationally.

Not the poster you are responding to, but you are correct. This may get people doing additionas to think rationally and make sure that they fit into aesthetics so that they don't garner the wrong attention for their build. It's not required, but it's a good incentive, don't you think?

Not the previous poster, but the building code is complicated. I am relatively sure that any inspector can find enough violations on any work site to issue a stop work. And with further investigation, find violations they need a special permit or variance.

Don't piss off the county is the moral of the story.

Basically, yes. Which is why is incredibly short-sighted to suggest the BZA/county should apply the law differently because they don't like the homeowner or home.

Equal protection under the law.

Dislike of the height or design isn't relevant here. The issue is the impact of the requested modification- the 6 inch setback modification. If you can come up with a coherent and meaningful impact of those 6 inches, then go for it.

That's backward. The builder needs to prove why he needs to violate the setback. What is so unusual about his project that he needs to violate the standards everyone else is held to? That's going to be a difficult argument because he's only going to be missing a few square feet to follow the setback. Did he really really need than extra 30 sq. ft. enjoy his property? Is there some minimum room dimension he needed?

That's the standard for a variance, not a special permit.

The person who thinks the homeowner should apply for a special permit has been asked several times for the reasons they think this situation fits into a special permit request rather than a variance.

As a non-lawyer, when I read the Fairfax County zoning website, it appears that this situation should be handled by a variance application because of the dimensional quality of the issue here. The site specifically says that issues that involve dimensions need a variance. It seems that a wall intruding almost six inches into the setback very clearly involves a question of the dimensions involved.

[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:

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.

Before construction? Does that mean you finally understand the error was in the plans?

You clearly want someone else besides the homeowner to bear responsibility for this issue, but in the end, the fact is that the homeowner made careless mistakes and submitted plans that he didn’t even follow (plans showed a garage, but the actual construction has no garage). Adding careless mistakes to conscious choices to alter the plans after approval, the homeowner did not put himself in a terribly sympathetic position here.

The homeowner is bearing the responsibility for those errors. He is now spending tens of thousands of dollars due to them. No one else is going to be paying for his mistakes. That's punishment enough.

I somehow doubt you'd have such strong feelings about a 6 inch setback encroachment if this was a single level addition. You just don't like what he's building, or his family's living situation, so you're hoping they use this as an opportunity to knock him down.

If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed. The builder invited scrutiny with his thoughtless behavior. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

Exactly, because a 6 inch encroachment into the setback doesn't have a meaningful impact. Your issue is with the height and design, not the setback.

Not what I said. I am saying that it would have gone unnoticed. The behavior of the builder attracted unwanted scrutiny, and all the errors were uncovered. I am sure there are numerous setback violations in Fairfax County that go undiscovered. However, *if* the county finds one, they all get the same treatment. Nextdoor is full of posts about people having to tear down or move sheds due to setback violations.

You said exactly that: "If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed."

The 6 inches wouldn't be noticed. People are noticing the height, which isn't in violation.

This is an addition on a house, not a shed. There's not nearly the same ability to reasonably move or rebuild this, which you surely know. Your dislike of the addition is causing you to think irrationally.

There are still ways they can change the existing construction. They can make it a 2 story building with a roof, only ripping off the top. It's only framed now.

How would "ripping off the top" address the setback?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Before construction? Does that mean you finally understand the error was in the plans?

You clearly want someone else besides the homeowner to bear responsibility for this issue, but in the end, the fact is that the homeowner made careless mistakes and submitted plans that he didn’t even follow (plans showed a garage, but the actual construction has no garage). Adding careless mistakes to conscious choices to alter the plans after approval, the homeowner did not put himself in a terribly sympathetic position here.

The homeowner is bearing the responsibility for those errors. He is now spending tens of thousands of dollars due to them. No one else is going to be paying for his mistakes. That's punishment enough.

I somehow doubt you'd have such strong feelings about a 6 inch setback encroachment if this was a single level addition. You just don't like what he's building, or his family's living situation, so you're hoping they use this as an opportunity to knock him down.

If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed. The builder invited scrutiny with his thoughtless behavior. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

Exactly, because a 6 inch encroachment into the setback doesn't have a meaningful impact. Your issue is with the height and design, not the setback.

Not what I said. I am saying that it would have gone unnoticed. The behavior of the builder attracted unwanted scrutiny, and all the errors were uncovered. I am sure there are numerous setback violations in Fairfax County that go undiscovered. However, *if* the county finds one, they all get the same treatment. Nextdoor is full of posts about people having to tear down or move sheds due to setback violations.

You said exactly that: "If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed."

The 6 inches wouldn't be noticed. People are noticing the height, which isn't in violation.

This is an addition on a house, not a shed. There's not nearly the same ability to reasonably move or rebuild this, which you surely know. Your dislike of the addition is causing you to think irrationally.

Not the poster you are responding to, but you are correct. This may get people doing additionas to think rationally and make sure that they fit into aesthetics so that they don't garner the wrong attention for their build. It's not required, but it's a good incentive, don't you think?

Not the previous poster, but the building code is complicated. I am relatively sure that any inspector can find enough violations on any work site to issue a stop work. And with further investigation, find violations they need a special permit or variance.

Don't piss off the county is the moral of the story.

Basically, yes. Which is why is incredibly short-sighted to suggest the BZA/county should apply the law differently because they don't like the homeowner or home.

Equal protection under the law.

Dislike of the height or design isn't relevant here. The issue is the impact of the requested modification- the 6 inch setback modification. If you can come up with a coherent and meaningful impact of those 6 inches, then go for it.

That's backward. The builder needs to prove why he needs to violate the setback. What is so unusual about his project that he needs to violate the standards everyone else is held to? That's going to be a difficult argument because he's only going to be missing a few square feet to follow the setback. Did he really really need than extra 30 sq. ft. enjoy his property? Is there some minimum room dimension he needed?

That's the standard for a variance, not a special permit.

The person who thinks the homeowner should apply for a special permit has been asked several times for the reasons they think this situation fits into a special permit request rather than a variance.

As a non-lawyer, when I read the Fairfax County zoning website, it appears that this situation should be handled by a variance application because of the dimensional quality of the issue here. The site specifically says that issues that involve dimensions need a variance. It seems that a wall intruding almost six inches into the setback very clearly involves a question of the dimensions involved.

The person filing for relief picks the relief they want to seek. They want a reduction in the setback requirement. That is very clearly in the list of items that can be addressed through a special permit:
https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc-viewer.aspx?secid=2583#secid-2583

I really don't understand why think "Reduction of Required Setbacks" doesn't apply here.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Before construction? Does that mean you finally understand the error was in the plans?

You clearly want someone else besides the homeowner to bear responsibility for this issue, but in the end, the fact is that the homeowner made careless mistakes and submitted plans that he didn’t even follow (plans showed a garage, but the actual construction has no garage). Adding careless mistakes to conscious choices to alter the plans after approval, the homeowner did not put himself in a terribly sympathetic position here.

The homeowner is bearing the responsibility for those errors. He is now spending tens of thousands of dollars due to them. No one else is going to be paying for his mistakes. That's punishment enough.

I somehow doubt you'd have such strong feelings about a 6 inch setback encroachment if this was a single level addition. You just don't like what he's building, or his family's living situation, so you're hoping they use this as an opportunity to knock him down.

If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed. The builder invited scrutiny with his thoughtless behavior. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

Exactly, because a 6 inch encroachment into the setback doesn't have a meaningful impact. Your issue is with the height and design, not the setback.

Not what I said. I am saying that it would have gone unnoticed. The behavior of the builder attracted unwanted scrutiny, and all the errors were uncovered. I am sure there are numerous setback violations in Fairfax County that go undiscovered. However, *if* the county finds one, they all get the same treatment. Nextdoor is full of posts about people having to tear down or move sheds due to setback violations.

You said exactly that: "If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed."

The 6 inches wouldn't be noticed. People are noticing the height, which isn't in violation.

This is an addition on a house, not a shed. There's not nearly the same ability to reasonably move or rebuild this, which you surely know. Your dislike of the addition is causing you to think irrationally.

Not the poster you are responding to, but you are correct. This may get people doing additionas to think rationally and make sure that they fit into aesthetics so that they don't garner the wrong attention for their build. It's not required, but it's a good incentive, don't you think?

Not the previous poster, but the building code is complicated. I am relatively sure that any inspector can find enough violations on any work site to issue a stop work. And with further investigation, find violations they need a special permit or variance.

Don't piss off the county is the moral of the story.

Basically, yes. Which is why is incredibly short-sighted to suggest the BZA/county should apply the law differently because they don't like the homeowner or home.

Equal protection under the law.

Dislike of the height or design isn't relevant here. The issue is the impact of the requested modification- the 6 inch setback modification. If you can come up with a coherent and meaningful impact of those 6 inches, then go for it.

That's backward. The builder needs to prove why he needs to violate the setback. What is so unusual about his project that he needs to violate the standards everyone else is held to? That's going to be a difficult argument because he's only going to be missing a few square feet to follow the setback. Did he really really need than extra 30 sq. ft. enjoy his property? Is there some minimum room dimension he needed?

That's the standard for a variance, not a special permit.

A special permit would not be my first choice. It gives the zoning board too much discretion:

(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.

"Proposed use" refers to the modification they're seeking- in this case, a small reduction in the setback requirements.

But you're right, it does give them a lot of discretion. This is not a path someone is going to want go down. Which is why the claimed concerns about encouraging mistakes or fraud are absurd. The cost and disruption involved is already more than enough to heavily discourage this.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Before construction? Does that mean you finally understand the error was in the plans?

You clearly want someone else besides the homeowner to bear responsibility for this issue, but in the end, the fact is that the homeowner made careless mistakes and submitted plans that he didn’t even follow (plans showed a garage, but the actual construction has no garage). Adding careless mistakes to conscious choices to alter the plans after approval, the homeowner did not put himself in a terribly sympathetic position here.

The homeowner is bearing the responsibility for those errors. He is now spending tens of thousands of dollars due to them. No one else is going to be paying for his mistakes. That's punishment enough.

I somehow doubt you'd have such strong feelings about a 6 inch setback encroachment if this was a single level addition. You just don't like what he's building, or his family's living situation, so you're hoping they use this as an opportunity to knock him down.

If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed. The builder invited scrutiny with his thoughtless behavior. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

Exactly, because a 6 inch encroachment into the setback doesn't have a meaningful impact. Your issue is with the height and design, not the setback.

Not what I said. I am saying that it would have gone unnoticed. The behavior of the builder attracted unwanted scrutiny, and all the errors were uncovered. I am sure there are numerous setback violations in Fairfax County that go undiscovered. However, *if* the county finds one, they all get the same treatment. Nextdoor is full of posts about people having to tear down or move sheds due to setback violations.

You said exactly that: "If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed."

The 6 inches wouldn't be noticed. People are noticing the height, which isn't in violation.

This is an addition on a house, not a shed. There's not nearly the same ability to reasonably move or rebuild this, which you surely know. Your dislike of the addition is causing you to think irrationally.

Not the poster you are responding to, but you are correct. This may get people doing additionas to think rationally and make sure that they fit into aesthetics so that they don't garner the wrong attention for their build. It's not required, but it's a good incentive, don't you think?

Not the previous poster, but the building code is complicated. I am relatively sure that any inspector can find enough violations on any work site to issue a stop work. And with further investigation, find violations they need a special permit or variance.

Don't piss off the county is the moral of the story.

Basically, yes. Which is why is incredibly short-sighted to suggest the BZA/county should apply the law differently because they don't like the homeowner or home.

Equal protection under the law.

Dislike of the height or design isn't relevant here. The issue is the impact of the requested modification- the 6 inch setback modification. If you can come up with a coherent and meaningful impact of those 6 inches, then go for it.

That's backward. The builder needs to prove why he needs to violate the setback. What is so unusual about his project that he needs to violate the standards everyone else is held to? That's going to be a difficult argument because he's only going to be missing a few square feet to follow the setback. Did he really really need than extra 30 sq. ft. enjoy his property? Is there some minimum room dimension he needed?

That's the standard for a variance, not a special permit.

The person who thinks the homeowner should apply for a special permit has been asked several times for the reasons they think this situation fits into a special permit request rather than a variance.

As a non-lawyer, when I read the Fairfax County zoning website, it appears that this situation should be handled by a variance application because of the dimensional quality of the issue here. The site specifically says that issues that involve dimensions need a variance. It seems that a wall intruding almost six inches into the setback very clearly involves a question of the dimensions involved.

The person filing for relief picks the relief they want to seek. They want a reduction in the setback requirement. That is very clearly in the list of items that can be addressed through a special permit:
https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc-viewer.aspx?secid=2583#secid-2583

I really don't understand why think "Reduction of Required Setbacks" doesn't apply here.

Thank you for your detailed response. One poster was asked this question several times and only gave vague answers.

It does look as though either route would work. The county is likely to give the request a thorough review, whether the homeowner files for a special permit or a variance.

[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:

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.

Before construction? Does that mean you finally understand the error was in the plans?

You clearly want someone else besides the homeowner to bear responsibility for this issue, but in the end, the fact is that the homeowner made careless mistakes and submitted plans that he didn’t even follow (plans showed a garage, but the actual construction has no garage). Adding careless mistakes to conscious choices to alter the plans after approval, the homeowner did not put himself in a terribly sympathetic position here.

The homeowner is bearing the responsibility for those errors. He is now spending tens of thousands of dollars due to them. No one else is going to be paying for his mistakes. That's punishment enough.

I somehow doubt you'd have such strong feelings about a 6 inch setback encroachment if this was a single level addition. You just don't like what he's building, or his family's living situation, so you're hoping they use this as an opportunity to knock him down.

If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed. The builder invited scrutiny with his thoughtless behavior. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

Exactly, because a 6 inch encroachment into the setback doesn't have a meaningful impact. Your issue is with the height and design, not the setback.

Not what I said. I am saying that it would have gone unnoticed. The behavior of the builder attracted unwanted scrutiny, and all the errors were uncovered. I am sure there are numerous setback violations in Fairfax County that go undiscovered. However, *if* the county finds one, they all get the same treatment. Nextdoor is full of posts about people having to tear down or move sheds due to setback violations.

You said exactly that: "If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed."

The 6 inches wouldn't be noticed. People are noticing the height, which isn't in violation.

This is an addition on a house, not a shed. There's not nearly the same ability to reasonably move or rebuild this, which you surely know. Your dislike of the addition is causing you to think irrationally.

I am rational. The county investigated the site and found the setback violation. All setback violations are treated equally. He needs to get a special permit or variance. He's not likely to get it at this phase of construction.

I agree it should be treated equally. I disagree that the county would typically attempt to order a demolition/rebuild of a house over 6 inches. You're hoping that they treat this case differently because people don't like the house.

Not at all. Giving this builder an exception would create an adverse motivation for future builders to complete as much as you can so that you can claim financial hardship. The county has made people tear down sheds for setback and height violations. "It's just a shed" doesn't fly as an excuse either.

Then that's ultimately the source of our disagreement. You think they would go after a different homeowner with a less objectionable house over a 6 inch encroachment, so you think I'm hoping for special treatment in this case. I can't fathom that they would, so to me it looks like you're hoping for special treatment the other way.

And sheds are different. Come on. That doesn't mean they would or wouldn't treat a framed house the same way.

In practice, I suspect what apparently happened in Baltimore is the usual practice: they just don't enforce it even when they do learn of it.

Yes, the county certainly would go after you. If they find out about it, you will need to get an exception. If the county has time to investigate sheds, I am certain they are willing to look at additions.

The Baltimore case went to court over enforcement. The occupancy permit was revoked. We aren't sure of the final outcome.

It went to court and the court sent it back to the BZA. It sat with the BZA for 5 years before everything was dropped. It appears, although I'm not certain, the occupancy permit was restored well before that, based on Google photos suggesting it was occupied.

It basically looks like the city long stopped treating it as an enforcement action, and somehow alleviated the owner's desire/request for a variance. Apparently whoever bought it wasn't that concerned, either.

https://redf.in/1byZJe

[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:

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.

Before construction? Does that mean you finally understand the error was in the plans?

You clearly want someone else besides the homeowner to bear responsibility for this issue, but in the end, the fact is that the homeowner made careless mistakes and submitted plans that he didn’t even follow (plans showed a garage, but the actual construction has no garage). Adding careless mistakes to conscious choices to alter the plans after approval, the homeowner did not put himself in a terribly sympathetic position here.

The homeowner is bearing the responsibility for those errors. He is now spending tens of thousands of dollars due to them. No one else is going to be paying for his mistakes. That's punishment enough.

I somehow doubt you'd have such strong feelings about a 6 inch setback encroachment if this was a single level addition. You just don't like what he's building, or his family's living situation, so you're hoping they use this as an opportunity to knock him down.

If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed. The builder invited scrutiny with his thoughtless behavior. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

Exactly, because a 6 inch encroachment into the setback doesn't have a meaningful impact. Your issue is with the height and design, not the setback.

Not what I said. I am saying that it would have gone unnoticed. The behavior of the builder attracted unwanted scrutiny, and all the errors were uncovered. I am sure there are numerous setback violations in Fairfax County that go undiscovered. However, *if* the county finds one, they all get the same treatment. Nextdoor is full of posts about people having to tear down or move sheds due to setback violations.

You said exactly that: "If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed."

The 6 inches wouldn't be noticed. People are noticing the height, which isn't in violation.

This is an addition on a house, not a shed. There's not nearly the same ability to reasonably move or rebuild this, which you surely know. Your dislike of the addition is causing you to think irrationally.

There are still ways they can change the existing construction. They can make it a 2 story building with a roof, only ripping off the top. It's only framed now.

How would "ripping off the top" address the setback?

DP. I agree. The issue isn't the height unless the builder exceedzs 35' or something crazy like that. Hopefully, the builder doesn't get the bright idea of sticking the mechanicals up there to save some interior space.

[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:

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: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.

Before construction? Does that mean you finally understand the error was in the plans?

You clearly want someone else besides the homeowner to bear responsibility for this issue, but in the end, the fact is that the homeowner made careless mistakes and submitted plans that he didn’t even follow (plans showed a garage, but the actual construction has no garage). Adding careless mistakes to conscious choices to alter the plans after approval, the homeowner did not put himself in a terribly sympathetic position here.

The homeowner is bearing the responsibility for those errors. He is now spending tens of thousands of dollars due to them. No one else is going to be paying for his mistakes. That's punishment enough.

I somehow doubt you'd have such strong feelings about a 6 inch setback encroachment if this was a single level addition. You just don't like what he's building, or his family's living situation, so you're hoping they use this as an opportunity to knock him down.

If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed. The builder invited scrutiny with his thoughtless behavior. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

Exactly, because a 6 inch encroachment into the setback doesn't have a meaningful impact. Your issue is with the height and design, not the setback.

Not what I said. I am saying that it would have gone unnoticed. The behavior of the builder attracted unwanted scrutiny, and all the errors were uncovered. I am sure there are numerous setback violations in Fairfax County that go undiscovered. However, *if* the county finds one, they all get the same treatment. Nextdoor is full of posts about people having to tear down or move sheds due to setback violations.

You said exactly that: "If this were a single level addition, no one would have noticed."

The 6 inches wouldn't be noticed. People are noticing the height, which isn't in violation.

This is an addition on a house, not a shed. There's not nearly the same ability to reasonably move or rebuild this, which you surely know. Your dislike of the addition is causing you to think irrationally.

Not the poster you are responding to, but you are correct. This may get people doing additionas to think rationally and make sure that they fit into aesthetics so that they don't garner the wrong attention for their build. It's not required, but it's a good incentive, don't you think?

Not the previous poster, but the building code is complicated. I am relatively sure that any inspector can find enough violations on any work site to issue a stop work. And with further investigation, find violations they need a special permit or variance.

Don't piss off the county is the moral of the story.

Basically, yes. Which is why is incredibly short-sighted to suggest the BZA/county should apply the law differently because they don't like the homeowner or home.

Equal protection under the law.

Dislike of the height or design isn't relevant here. The issue is the impact of the requested modification- the 6 inch setback modification. If you can come up with a coherent and meaningful impact of those 6 inches, then go for it.

That's backward. The builder needs to prove why he needs to violate the setback. What is so unusual about his project that he needs to violate the standards everyone else is held to? That's going to be a difficult argument because he's only going to be missing a few square feet to follow the setback. Did he really really need than extra 30 sq. ft. enjoy his property? Is there some minimum room dimension he needed?

That's the standard for a variance, not a special permit.

The person who thinks the homeowner should apply for a special permit has been asked several times for the reasons they think this situation fits into a special permit request rather than a variance.

As a non-lawyer, when I read the Fairfax County zoning website, it appears that this situation should be handled by a variance application because of the dimensional quality of the issue here. The site specifically says that issues that involve dimensions need a variance. It seems that a wall intruding almost six inches into the setback very clearly involves a question of the dimensions involved.

The person filing for relief picks the relief they want to seek. They want a reduction in the setback requirement. That is very clearly in the list of items that can be addressed through a special permit:
https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc-viewer.aspx?secid=2583#secid-2583

I really don't understand why think "Reduction of Required Setbacks" doesn't apply here.

Thank you for your detailed response. One poster was asked this question several times and only gave vague answers.

It does look as though either route would work. The county is likely to give the request a thorough review, whether the homeowner files for a special permit or a variance.

I would avoid anything that let the county consider anything other than the setback. Special permits also mention the "Comprehensive Plan" and it's broad enough that it can be applied either way to this issue. Make the county decide on the single issue of the setback.