Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
The inspector did request that whatever plan an engineer comes up with to be submitted for review to Simpson and then be considered by the County. I am not sure how strict the requests of the inspector are, but this is still a significant complication as it adds further review and another plan amendment (as well as more costs). I have no doubt that the homeowner will be able to find someone to come up with a report justifying the work in place, however it is unlikely that Simpson will even offer an opinion on the review as they are under no obligation to do so. If they did offer an opinion for some reason, there is no deadline that they are compelled to adhere to. Realistically, I could see them saying we have an approved installation process (which this does not conform with) and we stand by that process alone. The lack of an opinion from Simpson, or one that declines to endorse a favorable engineering report, may (not will) impact the review board’s decision process. There are too many errors and deviations from the plan to be accidental. I think it is fair to call the structural integrity of this addition into question. Poor workmanship passes inspections all the time, but due to the Homeowner’s self-created issues, the inspectors are applying a much greater level of scrutiny (rightly so in my opinion) and it appears they will not let anything slide…as they say, “them’s the breaks”. Nevertheless, this project is going to be remaining in regulatory purgatory for the foreseeable future and will continue to atrophy in place. The zoning matter is the albatross in all of this. Resolution of this matter is tied into the original work stoppage. Although there is a BZA hearing in April, that will not be the end of the zoning process as the BZA’s decision is almost certainly going to be appealed to the circuit court by the non-prevailing party. Given how unique and major this issue has become, the Circuit Court will almost certainly hear a valid appeal, and then any decision it makes will likely be appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court. At least for the county’s sake, it is out of their hands after the BZA hearing and they have no liability or obligations once it makes it to the courts. Well let me rephrase, it is out of their hands until they have to issue a demolition permit and enforce it...if it gets to that point… |
Anonymous
I thought the contractor who wrote up something for the appeal does not currently have a license. Wouldn't that party be the builder or is it meant as a second opinion? |
Anonymous
i didn't see any metal walls, so I've been assuming the reference to Simpson Strong-Tie is for their holdowns. In that case, it seems far more likely they'd install other holdowns. Unless only a few were installed incorrectly. |
Anonymous
It's not just hold downs. If you refer to Drawing S-10 (page 10 of 18) on the building plans, they are using Simpson Steel Strong Wall Panels. Both Garage Portal Systems on Concrete Foundation, and Two-Story Stacked on Concrete Foundations. If you don't have the full plans (or any other reader here), they are available on Accela. Look up the Zoning amendment for the address and the documents are amiable under "attachments" selection on the drop down. https://www.strongtie.com/products/lateral-systems/strong-wall-shearwalls/steel-strong-wall/shearwalls/steel-installation-standard-application-concrete-foundations https://www.strongtie.com/sswkits_steelstrongwallshearwalls/ssw2_kit/p/steel-strong-wall-two-story-stacked-wall-connection-kit |
Anonymous
Huh. I would have expected those to be visible. That seems like a harder thing to remediate. |
Anonymous
I am sure a few screws and nails will fix the current issues. The inspector is being picky. /s Amusingly, I counted four stories in the structure. I will boldly assume Simpson supports building an additional two stories on their stacked two story stacked wall system. |
Anonymous
|
I totally agree about it being harder to remediate, if even possible. The inspection remarks call out "incorrect bolt/threaded rod". Going on what the inspector said, the foundation was presumably poured without first setting the Steel Strong Wall Templates in the correct places before pouring the concrete. These templates and their bolts are critical in supporting the lateral loads of this 3 story addition and preventing building sway.
The templates are supposed to be set before pouring concrete to ensure proper bolt placement. This prevents them from moving and reduces the chance of voids in the concrete around the bolts. The structural integrity of the entire project may be compromised due to this massive oversight as the tolerances could easily be off. The risks are magnified given the addition is three stories. A single story would likely have more workaround possibilities. There is a good chance that the county will not approve and force demolition of the existing work. It would be a strange twist that it is this mistake that ends this comedy of errors, not the zoning encroachment. That being said, there is a non-zero chance the owner can find a solution. Had the owner gone with a licensed GC, at least they would have a claim against them to recoup losses. Unfortunately for the owner, by acting as the GC, the liability falls solely on them. Pennywise, pound foolish. For anyone interested, here is a video from Simpson on Strong Wall installation. The link starts at the point for proper setting of the templates in concrete: https://youtu.be/XLf29yU5M3M?t=215 |
Anonymous
He hired someone to do this work for him, under his direction. This leads to the question of who decided this was OK? If the contractor he hired thought this was fine, how many other homes have been built this way by that contractor and passed inspection because the inspection wasn't as attentive? |
Anonymous
|
He hired an unlicensed contractor. The contractors license is actually revoked with the state of VA.
Because the homeowner used an unlicensed contractor he pulled the permits himself. As a results, the homeowner is responsible for the errors. |
Anonymous
Thanks for this really informative post! |
Anonymous
|
As has been stated in numerous prior posts, Ajen Home Designers (the designer, agent, and presumably builder), is engaging in commercial activities under a revoked business license.
In the case that led to its license being revoked, Ajen and its principal, Norman Soto Perez, constructed at least 70% of a new building without a permit by its own admission. The Investigator on the case claims it was even more than 70% and that they found Soto Perez to be untruthful in their testimony and not credible. To read about the violation in detail, search “Ajen” on the link below and then once on the summary page for Ajen Home Designers (revoked license # 2705155199), click on “Complains”. From there one can click on the file ID to pull up the PDF of the report. https://www.dpor.virginia.gov/LicenseLookup On the approved plans, there are only two stamped professional engineer’s letters included: (i) the calculations for required load on the stair beams, and (ii) an inspection report on the EXISTING home’s footings (not the new addition itself). No where else are there professional engineer stamps on the design. While Mr. Soto Perez studied engineering in college, he does not have a valid Professional Engineer’s license from what I could find. Was this an oversight by the County? Highly likely. Even if it was, the County has no liability and can revoke the permit and pursue demolition if they see fit. The onus to comply is on the permittee (the homeowner). |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
I doubt mr Soto studies anything other than how to swing a hammer |
Anonymous
Becoming a PE is time consuming and will require assuming legal and financial liability for your decisions. Perez's behavior doesn't match what one would expect from a PE. |