Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Respectfully, the plans being approved is irrelevant to the current issue of the structure violating set back requirements. It is incumbent upon the owner and general contractor to ensure that the submitted plans were accurate, and that all construction conforms to the approved plans and do not violate any setbacks or other code requirements.

In this instance, it is a likely assumption that the homeowner failed to complete a proper survey before making the plans, as well as undertaking a final survey and stake-out before commencing construction to confirm that all work is being done in accordance with the plans. As the adage goes, “measure twice, cut once”.

While I sympathize that the owner is trying to do the best that they can within their budget constraints, accurate surveys are essential to the process, and while expensive, can be the difference between moving forward with the project or having to tear it down. There is a very high hurdle for variances to be approved, and in this situation, it appears that it is the fault of the owner, as they would not be facing setback issues had they invested in the proper process from the start (be it in the design or construction). Also, the orientation of the home to the property lines is irrelevant – more homes that not are not directly parallel to property lines.

This fiasco also highlights another issue of an owner acting as the GC – the owner is responsible for the costs incurred of the project should things go wrong. If the owner were using a licensed GC to manage the design and build, the owner would have legal means to pursue compensation or other remedy for the errors by going after the GC who would have bonding in place for the project to protect against any issues.

The arguments about aesthetics are a distraction, as are the comments simply pointing to the fact that plans were approved. The underlying issue is the setback, and given it is an entirely self-created issue by the owner and on that could have been easily mitigated with the proper work in the planning phases, it stands to be difficult to get. No one on here knows if it will be approved or denied, but it is a very high hurdle and I think it is inaccurate to assume it will be granted (ultimately it is up to county officials). Nevertheless, the owner’s attempts to maximize space and minimize costs have created a situation where the costs have ballooned.

[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:

They are asking the county to actually do inspections as they are supposed to. One of the inspections did find violations, hence the stop work order. The neighbors are not tying him up in litigation-the county, as it rightfully should, is doing ITS job to make sure codes and what not are being followed.

Oh please. They don't care about the structure being required to add additional wall braces (it failed a wind bracing test). They want to throw up every road block to try to make completing this addition impossible because they think it's ugly.

If it was really about wanting to prevent a boarding situation, they would just wait and see what the neighbors do, since the county has very strict rules on group living situations. It would be shut down right away. Again, they think they have the right to block construction of something they find ugly.

Ok hedge funder.

lol I wish.

I’m just a person with miserable neighbors.

Weird how you cap for the hedge funds then.

What a ridiculous statement. There's no connection to hedge funds or developers here. They wouldn't build an addition like this since a different design would probably have a better return. But this family is more concerned about livability.

There is absolutely a connection to hedge funds and large developers: you share with them the goal of devaluing the value of working class and middle class homes owned by individuals.

These are already $800k homes. They'll be fine.

Hopefully Courtney moves away and we'll see the minimal impact this has on prices.

Why do you keep singling out Courtney? It’s getting weird.

She's the one that started all this by posting online and then going to the press.

And? Why are you so angry at her? She’s the owner most affected by this construction.

Would you just go along to get along if you were her?

It's his property. He can do what he wants with it. I certainly wouldn't go all Karen.

Since she will have to see his ridiculous horribly constructed addition every single day and her property values just decreased, there’s nothing wrong with her for raising the issue to ensure that everything was done legally and within the rules and regulations of the county, to include all inspections.

You can continue to act as if he’s done nothing wrong and no one has been jmoaxged

He hasn't done anything wrong.

Actually, the addition was constructed 6 inches too close to the neighbor.
Honestly, Fairfax County was asleep at the wheel when they approved it. It’s the size of a small motel. I would be annoyed if it went up next to my house too.

In the same spot as his house before the addition.

The position of the original house doesn’t matter. He built the addition 6 inches to close according to the issued permit. Failure to follow issued permit = tear down.

No, the county doesn't make you tear down a building over 6 inches. It looks like that part of this has already been adjudicated.

I have seen situations where the government required a tear down because of discrepancies that a non expert would think of as minor.

This isn't a particularly unusual situation, though. Lots are small in much of the county, so this comes up regularly when an addition or accessory structure is built up to the setback. These have historically been granted variances. It would be hard for them not to. The issue isn't whether the project as a whole creates a problem for the neighbor, it is whether that six inches matters. And it obviously doesn't. Because it's an error of less to an 10%, it's a simple process.

If the homeowner is over the six inches and he wants to keep the existing structure, he will need to request a variance from Board of Zoning Appeals. This is talked about in Herrity’s email on the addition.

The variance request will trigger notices to adjoining property owners. Those property owners will be able to provide input. That’s the process, not just a willy nilly, you’re close enough to the setback requirement so it’s approved.

Won't this be handled as a special permit, rather than a variance? It still goes to the Board of Zoning Appeal, but the process is a bit different.

[Anonymous]

This was what Supervisor directly said about it being a variance:

Update on the Greenbriar addition. When the building permits for this addition were approved by Land Development Services (LDS), they showed that the addition complied with our current zoning ordinance and would be 8.5 feet away from the adjacent property line. This conforms with the 8-foot minimum and LDS determined that there was nothing that they could do to stop the addition from being built. At my urging, the County’s Zoning Administration Division performed a check of the property and found that the side of the addition was actually being constructed too close to the adjacent property by about 5-inches (before the addition of siding or any shutters or gutters that would move it closer). As a result, there is currently a stop-work order. At this time, the property owner has been encouraged to hire an independent contractor to resurvey the property and confirm or dispute County staff’s findings. If the addition is too close, it will need to be corrected or the homeowner will need to apply for a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

[Anonymous]

I'm guessing the term "variance" is being used loosely. This seems to pretty clearly fit under the special permit process, no?

[Anonymous]

"A floor for wife’s parents and single siblings, a floor for Mike’s parents and single siblings, and a floor for the brother that’s married with kids. "

Does this comport with this?

These limits can be found in subsection 4102.3.A of the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance and allow occupancy by no more than one of the following:

Two or more persons related by blood or marriage and any number of natural children, foster children, stepchildren, adopted children, or children in kinship care, and with no more than two roomers or boarders;
One or two persons with their dependent children, including natural children, foster children, stepchildren, adopted children, or children in kinship care, functioning as a single household;
No more than four persons not related by blood or marriage functioning as a single household;

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"A floor for wife’s parents and single siblings, a floor for Mike’s parents and single siblings, and a floor for the brother that’s married with kids. "

Does this comport with this?

These limits can be found in subsection 4102.3.A of the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance and allow occupancy by no more than one of the following:

Two or more persons related by blood or marriage and any number of natural children, foster children, stepchildren, adopted children, or children in kinship care, and with no more than two roomers or boarders;
One or two persons with their dependent children, including natural children, foster children, stepchildren, adopted children, or children in kinship care, functioning as a single household;
No more than four persons not related by blood or marriage functioning as a single household;

they are all related by blood or marriage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"A floor for wife’s parents and single siblings, a floor for Mike’s parents and single siblings, and a floor for the brother that’s married with kids. "

Does this comport with this?

These limits can be found in subsection 4102.3.A of the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance and allow occupancy by no more than one of the following:

Two or more persons related by blood or marriage and any number of natural children, foster children, stepchildren, adopted children, or children in kinship care, and with no more than two roomers or boarders;
One or two persons with their dependent children, including natural children, foster children, stepchildren, adopted children, or children in kinship care, functioning as a single household;
No more than four persons not related by blood or marriage functioning as a single household;

Pretty clearly yes. I'm not sure where you're going with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing the term "variance" is being used loosely. This seems to pretty clearly fit under the special permit process, no?

Sure, but that process is (potentially) lengthy and invites feedback from nearby property owners. There are no guarantees. I had the approval of my impacted neighbor before I ever applied for my special permit and it still took months and was not guaranteed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing the term "variance" is being used loosely. This seems to pretty clearly fit under the special permit process, no?

Sure, but that process is (potentially) lengthy and invites feedback from nearby property owners. There are no guarantees. I had the approval of my impacted neighbor before I ever applied for my special permit and it still took months and was not guaranteed.

It's not guaranteed per se, but there's a clear precedent that would be hard for them to ignore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing the term "variance" is being used loosely. This seems to pretty clearly fit under the special permit process, no?

Sure, but that process is (potentially) lengthy and invites feedback from nearby property owners. There are no guarantees. I had the approval of my impacted neighbor before I ever applied for my special permit and it still took months and was not guaranteed.

It's not guaranteed per se, but there's a clear precedent that would be hard for them to ignore.

Is there a clear precedent that has a similar number of neighbors objecting to the project?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing the term "variance" is being used loosely. This seems to pretty clearly fit under the special permit process, no?

Sure, but that process is (potentially) lengthy and invites feedback from nearby property owners. There are no guarantees. I had the approval of my impacted neighbor before I ever applied for my special permit and it still took months and was not guaranteed.

It's not guaranteed per se, but there's a clear precedent that would be hard for them to ignore.

Is there a clear precedent that has a similar number of neighbors objecting to the project?

The objections aren't over the six inches, so they aren't really relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing the term "variance" is being used loosely. This seems to pretty clearly fit under the special permit process, no?

Sure, but that process is (potentially) lengthy and invites feedback from nearby property owners. There are no guarantees. I had the approval of my impacted neighbor before I ever applied for my special permit and it still took months and was not guaranteed.

It's not guaranteed per se, but there's a clear precedent that would be hard for them to ignore.

Is there a clear precedent that has a similar number of neighbors objecting to the project?

The objections aren't over the six inches, so they aren't really relevant.

The neighbors are invited to state their objections at the hearing. They will listen to the neighbors as part of the decision process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing the term "variance" is being used loosely. This seems to pretty clearly fit under the special permit process, no?

Sure, but that process is (potentially) lengthy and invites feedback from nearby property owners. There are no guarantees. I had the approval of my impacted neighbor before I ever applied for my special permit and it still took months and was not guaranteed.

It's not guaranteed per se, but there's a clear precedent that would be hard for them to ignore.

Is there a clear precedent that has a similar number of neighbors objecting to the project?

The objections aren't over the six inches, so they aren't really relevant.

The neighbors are invited to state their objections at the hearing. They will listen to the neighbors as part of the decision process.

And the county is reviewing all building ordinances to prevent this type of structure from being built again. This issue has made national news; there is no precedent.

The homeowners will apply for their exception, the neighbors will comment, and the county personnel prepare a report/recommendation that gets voted on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Respectfully, the plans being approved is irrelevant to the current issue of the structure violating set back requirements. It is incumbent upon the owner and general contractor to ensure that the submitted plans were accurate, and that all construction conforms to the approved plans and do not violate any setbacks or other code requirements.

In this instance, it is a likely assumption that the homeowner failed to complete a proper survey before making the plans, as well as undertaking a final survey and stake-out before commencing construction to confirm that all work is being done in accordance with the plans. As the adage goes, “measure twice, cut once”.

While I sympathize that the owner is trying to do the best that they can within their budget constraints, accurate surveys are essential to the process, and while expensive, can be the difference between moving forward with the project or having to tear it down. There is a very high hurdle for variances to be approved, and in this situation, it appears that it is the fault of the owner, as they would not be facing setback issues had they invested in the proper process from the start (be it in the design or construction). Also, the orientation of the home to the property lines is irrelevant – more homes that not are not directly parallel to property lines.

This fiasco also highlights another issue of an owner acting as the GC – the owner is responsible for the costs incurred of the project should things go wrong. If the owner were using a licensed GC to manage the design and build, the owner would have legal means to pursue compensation or other remedy for the errors by going after the GC who would have bonding in place for the project to protect against any issues.

The arguments about aesthetics are a distraction, as are the comments simply pointing to the fact that plans were approved. The underlying issue is the setback, and given it is an entirely self-created issue by the owner and on that could have been easily mitigated with the proper work in the planning phases, it stands to be difficult to get. No one on here knows if it will be approved or denied, but it is a very high hurdle and I think it is inaccurate to assume it will be granted (ultimately it is up to county officials). Nevertheless, the owner’s attempts to maximize space and minimize costs have created a situation where the costs have ballooned.

Thank you. Finally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing the term "variance" is being used loosely. This seems to pretty clearly fit under the special permit process, no?

Sure, but that process is (potentially) lengthy and invites feedback from nearby property owners. There are no guarantees. I had the approval of my impacted neighbor before I ever applied for my special permit and it still took months and was not guaranteed.

It's not guaranteed per se, but there's a clear precedent that would be hard for them to ignore.

Is there a clear precedent that has a similar number of neighbors objecting to the project?

The objections aren't over the six inches, so they aren't really relevant.

Except that it's doubtful a variance will be allowed/granted, given the weight of public opinion against this construction.