Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

There is finally an update that provides a clearer view of the setback zoning issues. The homeowner requested administrative approval from the Zoning board in December, and the request for relief was denied. The homeowner filed for an appeal of this decision today (Jan 16, 2025). One can view the supporting documents in the "attachment" section on the PLUS ACA-Accela Citizen Access site.

Some key comments from the denial letter:

While additional encroachment to stay within the ten-percent, you state that installation of vinyl siding on the addition will result in a final setback "around" 7.3 feet, you acknowledge that both the dimension of the vinyl siding and the final setback are both approximated. In this case, the measurements at hand are so close to the ten-percent limit that there is practically no room for further error or uncertainty. As a result, the Zoning Administrator is unable to applicable side yard setback.

As approved in Building Permit satisfied the intent of the Ordinance in that it met all required standards for construction in a by-right scenario as shown. However, given the request for an administrative reduction of the side yard setback, the addition is now subject to additional scrutiny as it relates to its impact on other property in the immediate vicinity… is considerably taller than the homes typically found in Greenbrier, including your original residence. In reviewing your request for an administrative yard reduction, staff cannot find that the addition supports the intent of promoting "orderly and controlled development of the County.”. The overall height and design of the addition is inconsistent with the dwellings found on the immediately adjacent properties to the northwest and southeast. - This remark flies in direct contraction to some of the posters who supported the addition that claimed because the building was approved, its cohesion with the community didn't matter.

While your request lays out some basis of hardship as it relates to increased construction costs and the timeliness of construction activities due to the delays associated with noncompliance, these are solely financial in nature or matters of convenience. The Zoning Administrator cannot find that you have sufficiently proven unreasonable hardship in this instance, as you have not presented any information that shows modification of the addition to conform with the approved setback is not feasible, from either a cost or a practical perspective.

The appeal will now take place at a public hearing. While this is not over in any way, the homeowner now has a higher hurdle to overcome in seeking approval. Unfortunately for all involved, the structure will continue to languish, although this is probably a preferable outcome as it preserves some hope of the structure being demolished, versus having it be permanent.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the update.

[Anonymous]

So more interesting information found in the materials with the zoning appeal.

A letter was included from the contractor expressing the difficulty and costliness associated with relocating the right side wall. The letter was signed by Norman Soto of Ajen Homes Designers.

Guess what…their VA Contractor License was revoked in 2024. Not sure why. Link below.

https://www.dpor.virginia.gov/LicenseLookup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is finally an update that provides a clearer view of the setback zoning issues. The homeowner requested administrative approval from the Zoning board in December, and the request for relief was denied. The homeowner filed for an appeal of this decision today (Jan 16, 2025). One can view the supporting documents in the "attachment" section on the PLUS ACA-Accela Citizen Access site.

Some key comments from the denial letter:

While additional encroachment to stay within the ten-percent, you state that installation of vinyl siding on the addition will result in a final setback "around" 7.3 feet, you acknowledge that both the dimension of the vinyl siding and the final setback are both approximated. In this case, the measurements at hand are so close to the ten-percent limit that there is practically no room for further error or uncertainty. As a result, the Zoning Administrator is unable to applicable side yard setback.

As approved in Building Permit satisfied the intent of the Ordinance in that it met all required standards for construction in a by-right scenario as shown. However, given the request for an administrative reduction of the side yard setback, the addition is now subject to additional scrutiny as it relates to its impact on other property in the immediate vicinity… is considerably taller than the homes typically found in Greenbrier, including your original residence. In reviewing your request for an administrative yard reduction, staff cannot find that the addition supports the intent of promoting "orderly and controlled development of the County.”. The overall height and design of the addition is inconsistent with the dwellings found on the immediately adjacent properties to the northwest and southeast. - This remark flies in direct contraction to some of the posters who supported the addition that claimed because the building was approved, its cohesion with the community didn't matter.

While your request lays out some basis of hardship as it relates to increased construction costs and the timeliness of construction activities due to the delays associated with noncompliance, these are solely financial in nature or matters of convenience. The Zoning Administrator cannot find that you have sufficiently proven unreasonable hardship in this instance, as you have not presented any information that shows modification of the addition to conform with the approved setback is not feasible, from either a cost or a practical perspective.

The appeal will now take place at a public hearing. While this is not over in any way, the homeowner now has a higher hurdle to overcome in seeking approval. Unfortunately for all involved, the structure will continue to languish, although this is probably a preferable outcome as it preserves some hope of the structure being demolished, versus having it be permanent.

Good info. That homeowner better lawyer up. They've sunk enough into that addition that it would certainly be worth it. That denial letter might be a gift.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if my firm will let me rep him pro bono. Their decision has some considerable issues, IMO.

[Anonymous]

While it isn't obvious how a court would rule, the letter referencing the "orderly and controlled development of the County" as a basis for denial gives them a pretty good legal basis in court. I'm surprised they would give them that.

[Anonymous]

One of the provisions the Zoning Administrator must consider is if the variance will be “detrimental to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity”

This is where the bulk of the county’s response was. Think the homeowner has a hard time proving that his addition doesn’t impact the use or enjoyment of his neighbors. Enjoyment is very subjective and I can tell you I absolutely wouldn’t enjoy my property if I lived next to that. It’s a hard argument to make that the neighbors are not negatively impacted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the provisions the Zoning Administrator must consider is if the variance will be “detrimental to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity”

This is where the bulk of the county’s response was. Think the homeowner has a hard time proving that his addition doesn’t impact the use or enjoyment of his neighbors. Enjoyment is very subjective and I can tell you I absolutely wouldn’t enjoy my property if I lived next to that. It’s a hard argument to make that the neighbors are not negatively impacted.

I don't agree. If the structure, which was otherwise compliant, was 7 inches narrower, the enjoyment by the neighbors would be identical. Their enjoyment issues go to the size of the structure itself, which the county approved and which was with the zoning/building code rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the provisions the Zoning Administrator must consider is if the variance will be “detrimental to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity”

This is where the bulk of the county’s response was. Think the homeowner has a hard time proving that his addition doesn’t impact the use or enjoyment of his neighbors. Enjoyment is very subjective and I can tell you I absolutely wouldn’t enjoy my property if I lived next to that. It’s a hard argument to make that the neighbors are not negatively impacted.

I don't agree. If the structure, which was otherwise compliant, was 7 inches narrower, the enjoyment by the neighbors would be identical. Their enjoyment issues go to the size of the structure itself, which the county approved and which was with the zoning/building code rules.

Exactly. It was always likely this would need to go to the BZA, but that denial letter is great if the homeowner ultimately needs to take the county to court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the provisions the Zoning Administrator must consider is if the variance will be “detrimental to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity”

This is where the bulk of the county’s response was. Think the homeowner has a hard time proving that his addition doesn’t impact the use or enjoyment of his neighbors. Enjoyment is very subjective and I can tell you I absolutely wouldn’t enjoy my property if I lived next to that. It’s a hard argument to make that the neighbors are not negatively impacted.

I don't agree. If the structure, which was otherwise compliant, was 7 inches narrower, the enjoyment by the neighbors would be identical. Their enjoyment issues go to the size of the structure itself, which the county approved and which was with the zoning/building code rules.

Exactly. It was always likely this would need to go to the BZA, but that denial letter is great if the homeowner ultimately needs to take the county to court.

If it makes you feel better, go ahead and believe that. I wouldn’t count on it, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the provisions the Zoning Administrator must consider is if the variance will be “detrimental to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity”

This is where the bulk of the county’s response was. Think the homeowner has a hard time proving that his addition doesn’t impact the use or enjoyment of his neighbors. Enjoyment is very subjective and I can tell you I absolutely wouldn’t enjoy my property if I lived next to that. It’s a hard argument to make that the neighbors are not negatively impacted.

I don't agree. If the structure, which was otherwise compliant, was 7 inches narrower, the enjoyment by the neighbors would be identical. Their enjoyment issues go to the size of the structure itself, which the county approved and which was with the zoning/building code rules.

Exactly. It was always likely this would need to go to the BZA, but that denial letter is great if the homeowner ultimately needs to take the county to court.

If it makes you feel better, go ahead and believe that. I wouldn’t count on it, though.

I'd be shocked if that denial justification doesn't become part of the legal argument against the country. I don't know if they'll win, but it seems like it only helps the homeowner to have that in there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the provisions the Zoning Administrator must consider is if the variance will be “detrimental to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity”

This is where the bulk of the county’s response was. Think the homeowner has a hard time proving that his addition doesn’t impact the use or enjoyment of his neighbors. Enjoyment is very subjective and I can tell you I absolutely wouldn’t enjoy my property if I lived next to that. It’s a hard argument to make that the neighbors are not negatively impacted.

I don't agree. If the structure, which was otherwise compliant, was 7 inches narrower, the enjoyment by the neighbors would be identical. Their enjoyment issues go to the size of the structure itself, which the county approved and which was with the zoning/building code rules.

Exactly. It was always likely this would need to go to the BZA, but that denial letter is great if the homeowner ultimately needs to take the county to court.

If it makes you feel better, go ahead and believe that. I wouldn’t count on it, though.

I'd be shocked if that denial justification doesn't become part of the legal argument against the country. I don't know if they'll win, but it seems like it only helps the homeowner to have that in there.

Eh, not something I would count on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the provisions the Zoning Administrator must consider is if the variance will be “detrimental to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity”

This is where the bulk of the county’s response was. Think the homeowner has a hard time proving that his addition doesn’t impact the use or enjoyment of his neighbors. Enjoyment is very subjective and I can tell you I absolutely wouldn’t enjoy my property if I lived next to that. It’s a hard argument to make that the neighbors are not negatively impacted.

I don't agree. If the structure, which was otherwise compliant, was 7 inches narrower, the enjoyment by the neighbors would be identical. Their enjoyment issues go to the size of the structure itself, which the county approved and which was with the zoning/building code rules.

Agree that the neighbors (and I think there is a lot more than 1 impacted), enjoyment is similar whether it is 7inches or not. BUT the neighbors enjoyment was not a consideration in the approval process when the homeowner followed building code.

He did not build to code and seeks a variance. Now, neighbors use and enjoyment is a consideration and taken into account with the variance request.

With a variance, homeowners right to build doesn’t automatically get a pass because it was fine before. With the variance, the community gets a say and there is a lot of public opposition to this project. It’s going to be an interesting case.

Hope the homeowner gets a better lawyer than he did contractor. The contractor letter submitted about hardship with the variance request was awful.

I’m also surprised that the county is dealing with Mr. Nguyen and addressing him as the homeowner. He is not the homeowner of record on the tax pages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the provisions the Zoning Administrator must consider is if the variance will be “detrimental to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity”

This is where the bulk of the county’s response was. Think the homeowner has a hard time proving that his addition doesn’t impact the use or enjoyment of his neighbors. Enjoyment is very subjective and I can tell you I absolutely wouldn’t enjoy my property if I lived next to that. It’s a hard argument to make that the neighbors are not negatively impacted.

I don't agree. If the structure, which was otherwise compliant, was 7 inches narrower, the enjoyment by the neighbors would be identical. Their enjoyment issues go to the size of the structure itself, which the county approved and which was with the zoning/building code rules.

Agree that the neighbors (and I think there is a lot more than 1 impacted), enjoyment is similar whether it is 7inches or not. BUT the neighbors enjoyment was not a consideration in the approval process when the homeowner followed building code.

He did not build to code and seeks a variance. Now, neighbors use and enjoyment is a consideration and taken into account with the variance request.

With a variance, homeowners right to build doesn’t automatically get a pass because it was fine before. With the variance, the community gets a say and there is a lot of public opposition to this project. It’s going to be an interesting case.

Hope the homeowner gets a better lawyer than he did contractor. The contractor letter submitted about hardship with the variance request was awful.

I’m also surprised that the county is dealing with Mr. Nguyen and addressing him as the homeowner. He is not the homeowner of record on the tax pages.

But this is not logical reasoning. If the height of the structure isn't at issue, the neighbors' enjoyment (or lack thereof) of the structure should not be considered. The enjoyment analysis should only go to thing being varied. Will the 7 extra inches of width negatively impact the neighbors' enjoyment?

I'll admit, I haven't read the codes or statutes at issue. I'd be curious to read that and any caselaw interpreting it.

[Anonymous]

Legally the height of the structure is not an issue. The issue is the structure (including its height) is too close to the property line.

The utilization and enjoyment of the neighbors was always an issue, even when it was being built to code. So to answer your question, does 7 inches really impact the neighbors enjoyment. The answer is absolutely yes.

That’s why the BOS looked into it and is reviewing building ordinances as a whole to make sure this type of project doesn’t happen again. However, legally the county could not use the neighbors enjoyment and utilization as a reason to deny the project. Under a variation the neighbors and community become part of the considerations for approval.