Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

If he's not changing that area back to a garage, I'm curious where he's going to find 2 off street parking spaces.

[Anonymous]

Oh, are those not windows but patio doors? And then they build steps down from the doors? Do they look like permanent steps or just temporary ones used in construction? I could imagine locking them off when construction is complete and workers aren't going in and out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he's not changing that area back to a garage, I'm curious where he's going to find 2 off street parking spaces.

Doesn't Fairfax regularly waive the parking minimum?

Otherwise, does Fairfax county allow you to widen the apron? They had two spots side-by-side there before.

Even without expanding the apron, there might technically be ebough space to squeeze another car to the side, although you'd need the spot on the left to be open to get in and out of the spot on the right.

[Anonymous]

Actually, looking at the older street photos, there's almost certainly enough room to lengthen the parking back to the sidewalk, which would provide two off-street spots. I'm pretty sure the two spots don't have to be independently accessible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he's not changing that area back to a garage, I'm curious where he's going to find 2 off street parking spaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he's not changing that area back to a garage, I'm curious where he's going to find 2 off street parking spaces.

He's built the addition into where those cars are parked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he's not changing that area back to a garage, I'm curious where he's going to find 2 off street parking spaces.

He's built the addition into where those cars are parked.

Part of it, yes. But it looks like there would still be ebough space if he extends the parking pad to the sidewalk.

He probably wouldn't ever use it, but I think it would try technically satisify the parking requirement.

[Anonymous]

It should be covered as a type of "tandem parking", which is allowed.

[Anonymous]

I'm confused now. Side by side tandem parking looks like it would have gone through fine. But it also looks like the submitted the plan never intending to do a garage. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused now. Side by side tandem parking looks like it would have gone through fine. But it also looks like the submitted the plan never intending to do a garage. Why?

It is not entirely clear that the s/s tandem parking in the same manner that existed would work, as paved parking also has to follow setback requirements. While a lot of homes have additional paved parking similar to the home in the picture, that does not mean it is technically allowed. The owners probably did the additional paving at some point in the past without a permit. Given they tore up the old driveway, they would have to follow the proper code to build a new one. Again, I don't know if the lot will or will not allow it with the new addition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he's not changing that area back to a garage, I'm curious where he's going to find 2 off street parking spaces.

He's built the addition into where those cars are parked.

Part of it, yes. But it looks like there would still be ebough space if he extends the parking pad to the sidewalk.

He probably wouldn't ever use it, but I think it would try technically satisify the parking requirement.

No - he has built the addition where both cars are parked. If he extends the pad along the property line to the apron, the apron would need to be extended.

Modifying residential driveway aprons requires a VDOT land use permit and must comply with Fairfax county zoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused now. Side by side tandem parking looks like it would have gone through fine. But it also looks like the submitted the plan never intending to do a garage. Why?

It is not entirely clear that the s/s tandem parking in the same manner that existed would work, as paved parking also has to follow setback requirements. While a lot of homes have additional paved parking similar to the home in the picture, that does not mean it is technically allowed. The owners probably did the additional paving at some point in the past without a permit. Given they tore up the old driveway, they would have to follow the proper code to build a new one. Again, I don't know if the lot will or will not allow it with the new addition.

Are you sure it has to follow setbacks? I could easily imagine some just violating such a rule quietly, but it looks very common. Including by the neighbor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he's not changing that area back to a garage, I'm curious where he's going to find 2 off street parking spaces.

He's built the addition into where those cars are parked.

Part of it, yes. But it looks like there would still be ebough space if he extends the parking pad to the sidewalk.

He probably wouldn't ever use it, but I think it would try technically satisify the parking requirement.

No - he has built the addition where both cars are parked. If he extends the pad along the property line to the apron, the apron would need to be extended.

Modifying residential driveway aprons requires a VDOT land use permit and must comply with Fairfax county zoning.

You can get a permit to do, though? I'm surprised no one around there has. It is a very common modification where I live.

But I wasn't suggesting that would be strictly necessary. It looks like there's still enough room for cars between the addition and the sidewalk. So just extending the parking pad to the sidewalk would give a second spot.

I don't know about setback problems though. Maybe you could widen it the other way, too (with or without expanding the apron).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he's not changing that area back to a garage, I'm curious where he's going to find 2 off street parking spaces.

He's built the addition into where those cars are parked.

Part of it, yes. But it looks like there would still be ebough space if he extends the parking pad to the sidewalk.

He probably wouldn't ever use it, but I think it would try technically satisify the parking requirement.

Cars are not supposed to park on the sidewalk. With the addition using driveway space, is there room there for a car to park without being over the sidewalk? Also, with the addition of so many extra bedrooms, will there be adults who own cars living in those rooms? Will they all be parking on the street?

And if there isn’t room room to park easily in the driveway, doesn’t that show more of a possible adverse effect on the neighborhood if two or more cars will be regularly parked on the street? One could argue that the extra cars regularly parked on the street would narrow the space for cars to pass on the street, making it more difficult to navigate the area safely. There would definitely be effects on safety and quality of life for residents.

[Anonymous]

I don't think there's a setback requirement for paved driveway/pad, but he's probably getting awfully close to the 30% coverage limit.