Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Negligence on the part of the owner is not an accepted reason to allow a hardship variance. This is a 100% self created issue on the part of the owner due to his failure to undertake proper surveys, have the site staked out pre-construction, and then confirmatory measurements once the slab had been laid down. The irony here is tremendous in that the owner's cost cutting has now spiraled their costs out of control and put the project at significant risk of being torn down. To think, had the owner been willing to spend $15k on survey work, they would not be in this position.

Setbacks exist for a reason, and in this case they are especially pertinent for good reason - fire safety. Just because the setback limit is 8 feet, does not mean one needs to build up to the 8 foot line - doing so opens up the greater possibility of setback violations when you consider things such as roof eaves, siding, gutters, etc.

The owner also has their hands full on remedying the items uncovered in the wind bracing inspecting. While inspection failures are common amongst all types of projects, including ones done by premier contractors, the wind bracing inspection report for this project does show some serious deficiencies.

The report comments are public on the Fairfax access portal:

"Work is incomplete and does not match approved plans. OK to install temporary weatherproofing to protect materials. While temporary weatherproofing may be installed; all weatherproofing must be removed prior to the next wind bracing inspection. Additional deficiencies have been identified. A Stop Work Order will be issued. Deficiencies Identified: 1. Foundation anchors missing in various locations throughout. 2. Not all fastening of sheathing complete. Some panels still loose. 3. Nail pattern incorrect at majority of braced wall panels throughout. 4. Interior braced walls not complete missing sheathing in various locations. 5. Header has not been installed at first floor front opening. 6. Strong wall panels not installed. 7. Opening layout has changed from approved plans. 8. Need to install blocking at seams of sheathing to fasten sheathing. 9. Unable to access upper floors and cannot verify wall to roof attachment or upper interior braced walls. 10. With respect to zoning compliance, based on the wall check survey prepared by Larry N. Scartz and dated October 29, 2025, the northwest corner of the addition is located only 7.4 feet from the northern side property line, where an 8-foot side yard setback is required for the R-3 Cluster District pursuant to Section 2102.6.B. of the Zoning Ordinance."

Errors are exactly the expected scenario for special permits for small violations of the setback requirements.

[Anonymous]

So basically it doesn't just LOOK like a bunch of sheets of particle board nailed together haphazardly. ..it actually IS that? It's going to fall over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So basically it doesn't just LOOK like a bunch of sheets of particle board nailed together haphazardly. ..it actually IS that? It's going to fall over.

Weird to tell them they can't go over to fix it then.

[Anonymous]

"Errors are exactly the expected scenario for special permits for small violations of the setback requirements."

- this is not the case when the error is the fault of the permittee. There was nothing inherently wrong with the property/lot itself and all issues here are principally the fault of the owner. Zoning variances are not given as a favor to someone who messed up on their own. Think of the incentives, no need to do the work properly and spend additional money because it will just get approved at the end. Small or large, it does not matter as this is a binary issue, it is either over the setback line or behind it. Fire safety is important here as the new addition is very close to the neigboring structure.

This is not a special permit situation anyways, as that is for use of the property. They may need one should they seek a zoning exception for multi family.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning-development/files/assets/documents/zoning/special%20permit%20process/specialpermit-applicationpackage.pdf

This issue needs to be sorted out through the zoning variance process with the BZA. It will be time consuming and difficult, as the root cause of the issue here has nothing to do with special conditions of the property itself, rather failure to do things property by the owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically it doesn't just LOOK like a bunch of sheets of particle board nailed together haphazardly. ..it actually IS that? It's going to fall over.

Weird to tell them they can't go over to fix it then.

The homeowner as GC "fix" would be to bury the violations behind drywall or siding so they can't be inspected and ask for an exception.

[Anonymous]

It sounds as though the homeowner who is serving as his own GC is possibly trying to serve as his own lawyer. Wonder how that will work out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Errors are exactly the expected scenario for special permits for small violations of the setback requirements."

- this is not the case when the error is the fault of the permittee. There was nothing inherently wrong with the property/lot itself and all issues here are principally the fault of the owner. Zoning variances are not given as a favor to someone who messed up on their own. Think of the incentives, no need to do the work properly and spend additional money because it will just get approved at the end. Small or large, it does not matter as this is a binary issue, it is either over the setback line or behind it. Fire safety is important here as the new addition is very close to the neigboring structure.

This is not a special permit situation anyways, as that is for use of the property. They may need one should they seek a zoning exception for multi family.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning-development/files/assets/documents/zoning/special%20permit%20process/specialpermit-applicationpackage.pdf

This issue needs to be sorted out through the zoning variance process with the BZA. It will be time consuming and difficult, as the root cause of the issue here has nothing to do with special conditions of the property itself, rather failure to do things property by the owner.

The special permit process covers small (<10%) errors when when measuring or laying out a structure. That seems to cover this case.

This isn’t a multi-family structure or living situation, so I’m not sure why you referenced that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Errors are exactly the expected scenario for special permits for small violations of the setback requirements."

- this is not the case when the error is the fault of the permittee. There was nothing inherently wrong with the property/lot itself and all issues here are principally the fault of the owner. Zoning variances are not given as a favor to someone who messed up on their own. Think of the incentives, no need to do the work properly and spend additional money because it will just get approved at the end. Small or large, it does not matter as this is a binary issue, it is either over the setback line or behind it. Fire safety is important here as the new addition is very close to the neigboring structure.

This is not a special permit situation anyways, as that is for use of the property. They may need one should they seek a zoning exception for multi family.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning-development/files/assets/documents/zoning/special%20permit%20process/specialpermit-applicationpackage.pdf

This issue needs to be sorted out through the zoning variance process with the BZA. It will be time consuming and difficult, as the root cause of the issue here has nothing to do with special conditions of the property itself, rather failure to do things property by the owner.

The special permit process covers small (<10%) errors when when measuring or laying out a structure. That seems to cover this case.

This isn’t a multi-family structure or living situation, so I’m not sure why you referenced that.

Someone who knows what they’re talking about is giving you useful information here. The owners need to talk to a lawyer about how to proceed- a real lawyer who will need to be paid. Going cheap on everything is not working out so far.

NAL here, but from the posts written above, it looks like small errors are not covered under the special permit process when they occur because of negligence (as in not getting a professional survey). An error through mistake is not the same as an error made after doing due diligence. The owners should talk to a lawyer familiar with the Fairfax County process to get good advice, if they haven’t already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Errors are exactly the expected scenario for special permits for small violations of the setback requirements."

- this is not the case when the error is the fault of the permittee. There was nothing inherently wrong with the property/lot itself and all issues here are principally the fault of the owner. Zoning variances are not given as a favor to someone who messed up on their own. Think of the incentives, no need to do the work properly and spend additional money because it will just get approved at the end. Small or large, it does not matter as this is a binary issue, it is either over the setback line or behind it. Fire safety is important here as the new addition is very close to the neigboring structure.

This is not a special permit situation anyways, as that is for use of the property. They may need one should they seek a zoning exception for multi family.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning-development/files/assets/documents/zoning/special%20permit%20process/specialpermit-applicationpackage.pdf

This issue needs to be sorted out through the zoning variance process with the BZA. It will be time consuming and difficult, as the root cause of the issue here has nothing to do with special conditions of the property itself, rather failure to do things property by the owner.

The special permit process covers small (<10%) errors when when measuring or laying out a structure. That seems to cover this case.

This isn’t a multi-family structure or living situation, so I’m not sure why you referenced that.

Someone who knows what they’re talking about is giving you useful information here. The owners need to talk to a lawyer about how to proceed- a real lawyer who will need to be paid. Going cheap on everything is not working out so far.

NAL here, but from the posts written above, it looks like small errors are not covered under the special permit process when they occur because of negligence (as in not getting a professional survey). An error through mistake is not the same as an error made after *not* doing due diligence. The owners should talk to a lawyer familiar with the Fairfax County process to get good advice, if they haven’t already.

See correction above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Errors are exactly the expected scenario for special permits for small violations of the setback requirements."

- this is not the case when the error is the fault of the permittee. There was nothing inherently wrong with the property/lot itself and all issues here are principally the fault of the owner. Zoning variances are not given as a favor to someone who messed up on their own. Think of the incentives, no need to do the work properly and spend additional money because it will just get approved at the end. Small or large, it does not matter as this is a binary issue, it is either over the setback line or behind it. Fire safety is important here as the new addition is very close to the neigboring structure.

This is not a special permit situation anyways, as that is for use of the property. They may need one should they seek a zoning exception for multi family.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning-development/files/assets/documents/zoning/special%20permit%20process/specialpermit-applicationpackage.pdf

This issue needs to be sorted out through the zoning variance process with the BZA. It will be time consuming and difficult, as the root cause of the issue here has nothing to do with special conditions of the property itself, rather failure to do things property by the owner.

The special permit process covers small (<10%) errors when when measuring or laying out a structure. That seems to cover this case.

This isn’t a multi-family structure or living situation, so I’m not sure why you referenced that.

Someone who knows what they’re talking about is giving you useful information here. The owners need to talk to a lawyer about how to proceed- a real lawyer who will need to be paid. Going cheap on everything is not working out so far.

NAL here, but from the posts written above, it looks like small errors are not covered under the special permit process when they occur because of negligence (as in not getting a professional survey). An error through mistake is not the same as an error made after doing due diligence. The owners should talk to a lawyer familiar with the Fairfax County process to get good advice, if they haven’t already.

Well, I certainly agree the owner should bring in a lawyer for this. They're going to need to reference the right ordinances and precedents, and demonstrate a willingness to take this court if necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Errors are exactly the expected scenario for special permits for small violations of the setback requirements."

- this is not the case when the error is the fault of the permittee. There was nothing inherently wrong with the property/lot itself and all issues here are principally the fault of the owner. Zoning variances are not given as a favor to someone who messed up on their own. Think of the incentives, no need to do the work properly and spend additional money because it will just get approved at the end. Small or large, it does not matter as this is a binary issue, it is either over the setback line or behind it. Fire safety is important here as the new addition is very close to the neigboring structure.

This is not a special permit situation anyways, as that is for use of the property. They may need one should they seek a zoning exception for multi family.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning-development/files/assets/documents/zoning/special%20permit%20process/specialpermit-applicationpackage.pdf

This issue needs to be sorted out through the zoning variance process with the BZA. It will be time consuming and difficult, as the root cause of the issue here has nothing to do with special conditions of the property itself, rather failure to do things property by the owner.

The special permit process covers small (<10%) errors when when measuring or laying out a structure. That seems to cover this case.

This isn’t a multi-family structure or living situation, so I’m not sure why you referenced that.

Someone who knows what they’re talking about is giving you useful information here. The owners need to talk to a lawyer about how to proceed- a real lawyer who will need to be paid. Going cheap on everything is not working out so far.

NAL here, but from the posts written above, it looks like small errors are not covered under the special permit process when they occur because of negligence (as in not getting a professional survey). An error through mistake is not the same as an error made after doing due diligence. The owners should talk to a lawyer familiar with the Fairfax County process to get good advice, if they haven’t already.

Well, I certainly agree the owner should bring in a lawyer for this. They're going to need to reference the right ordinances and precedents, and demonstrate a willingness to take this court if necessary.

Yes, it would be very helpful for a lawyer to explain the legal meaning of the specific words and phrases being used by the county, so that the owners don’t make further mistakes that will cost even more.

The owners have been penny wise and pound foolish about the building process so far. A lawyer could help guide them in making better decisions going forward. Yes, a good lawyer will cost money, but good advice could help the owners avoid throwing good money after bad.

Maybe hiring a good GC and a lawyer who can work together could help the owners keep from losing more money on the project in the future. Spending some money for good advice and guidance could save money in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Given that no one engaged in commenting here is a decision maker on the Fairfax County BZA in all likelihood, none of us know what the BZA will ultimately rule. That being said, we can have fun and engage in our own zero-stakes debate with our personal understanding of the rules (which ultimately is meaningless).

From Fairfax County code on Special Permits:
(https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc-viewer.aspx#secid-2583)

The Zoning Administrator may approve a reduction in the minimum setback requirements when a building or freestanding accessory structure (whether existing or partially constructed) does not comply with the minimum setback requirements applicable at the time such building or accessory structure was erected. A reduction may be approved in accordance with the following provisions:

1. The Zoning Administrator determines that:
a. )The error does not exceed ten percent of the applicable measurement;
The owner appears to satisfy this (6 inches / 96 inch setback = 6.25%).

b. The noncompliance was done through no fault of the property owner, or was the result of an error in the location of the building or structure after the issuance of a building permit, if required;
The owner is likely at fault due to their failure to have proper surveying performed and validated both before and during construction. The owners clearly did not determine the correct layout of property lines in conjunction with the planned addition and conform their design accordingly. I read that the owner claimed to have engaged a surveyor, but there are many different levels of surveys offered and I think it is fair to assume that no comprehensive site survey with pins being laid was done , nor any sort of pre-construction stake out…the owner went the cheap route. The owner has a duty to ensure all design and construction was compliant with relevant codes and any other applicable regulations. They are the permittee and general contractor in this situation, so they are wholly responsible.

c. It will not impair the purpose and intent of this Ordinance;

d. It will not be detrimental to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity;
The next-door neighbor is now able weigh in with their opinions, which they did not have initially due to the addition being constructed by right. Given that a special permit / variance must be sought, the next-door neighbors can now go on record and offer their views to the BZA for consideration. The neighbor can weigh in on any host of subjective matters that they feel may cause them harm – it is just up to the BZA to consider and determine how much, if any weight to give them. For example, the next-door neighbor has solar panels on their home, and the addition under construction may be detrimental to their power output due to reduced insolation.

e. It will not create unsafe conditions regarding other properties or public streets;
This is debatable, as a primary reason for side yard setbacks is fire separation and public safety. The new addition contains a kitchen and six bedrooms. The most common place in a home for a fire to occur is the kitchen. The second most common place is a bedroom. If I was the next-door neighbor, I would be raising fire safety as a principal concern in opposition to allowing the structure to exceed the required 8 foot minimum setback. One can see on a street view how close the neighbor’s home is to the addition. This should be a reasonable objection to raise.

f. Compliance with the minimum setback requirements would cause the owner unreasonable hardship; and
The violation of setbacks is due to the negligence of the owner failing to perform accurate surveys and confirm that the addition conformed to minimum setbacks. There is no unreasonable hardship caused to the homeowner as this is a reasonable outcome of failing to do the proper survey work. Losing money due to a mistake of one’s own accord is not a get out of jail free card in this sort of process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically it doesn't just LOOK like a bunch of sheets of particle board nailed together haphazardly. ..it actually IS that? It's going to fall over.

Weird to tell them they can't go over to fix it then.

The homeowner as GC "fix" would be to bury the violations behind drywall or siding so they can't be inspected and ask for an exception.

Stop spreading that lie. The son not homeowner is GC and it smells of elder abuse to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given that no one engaged in commenting here is a decision maker on the Fairfax County BZA in all likelihood, none of us know what the BZA will ultimately rule. That being said, we can have fun and engage in our own zero-stakes debate with our personal understanding of the rules (which ultimately is meaningless).

From Fairfax County code on Special Permits:
(https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc-viewer.aspx#secid-2583)

The Zoning Administrator may approve a reduction in the minimum setback requirements when a building or freestanding accessory structure (whether existing or partially constructed) does not comply with the minimum setback requirements applicable at the time such building or accessory structure was erected. A reduction may be approved in accordance with the following provisions:

1. The Zoning Administrator determines that:
a. )The error does not exceed ten percent of the applicable measurement;
The owner appears to satisfy this (6 inches / 96 inch setback = 6.25%).

b. The noncompliance was done through no fault of the property owner, or was the result of an error in the location of the building or structure after the issuance of a building permit, if required;
The owner is likely at fault due to their failure to have proper surveying performed and validated both before and during construction. The owners clearly did not determine the correct layout of property lines in conjunction with the planned addition and conform their design accordingly. I read that the owner claimed to have engaged a surveyor, but there are many different levels of surveys offered and I think it is fair to assume that no comprehensive site survey with pins being laid was done , nor any sort of pre-construction stake out…the owner went the cheap route. The owner has a duty to ensure all design and construction was compliant with relevant codes and any other applicable regulations. They are the permittee and general contractor in this situation, so they are wholly responsible.

c. It will not impair the purpose and intent of this Ordinance;

d. It will not be detrimental to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity;
The next-door neighbor is now able weigh in with their opinions, which they did not have initially due to the addition being constructed by right. Given that a special permit / variance must be sought, the next-door neighbors can now go on record and offer their views to the BZA for consideration. The neighbor can weigh in on any host of subjective matters that they feel may cause them harm – it is just up to the BZA to consider and determine how much, if any weight to give them. For example, the next-door neighbor has solar panels on their home, and the addition under construction may be detrimental to their power output due to reduced insolation.

e. It will not create unsafe conditions regarding other properties or public streets;
This is debatable, as a primary reason for side yard setbacks is fire separation and public safety. The new addition contains a kitchen and six bedrooms. The most common place in a home for a fire to occur is the kitchen. The second most common place is a bedroom. If I was the next-door neighbor, I would be raising fire safety as a principal concern in opposition to allowing the structure to exceed the required 8 foot minimum setback. One can see on a street view how close the neighbor’s home is to the addition. This should be a reasonable objection to raise.

f. Compliance with the minimum setback requirements would cause the owner unreasonable hardship; and
The violation of setbacks is due to the negligence of the owner failing to perform accurate surveys and confirm that the addition conformed to minimum setbacks. There is no unreasonable hardship caused to the homeowner as this is a reasonable outcome of failing to do the proper survey work. Losing money due to a mistake of one’s own accord is not a get out of jail free card in this sort of process.

By this logic, any error would be from "negligence". But obviously they understand mistakes happen, since nearly all of these special permits are granted. Maybe fully all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that no one engaged in commenting here is a decision maker on the Fairfax County BZA in all likelihood, none of us know what the BZA will ultimately rule. That being said, we can have fun and engage in our own zero-stakes debate with our personal understanding of the rules (which ultimately is meaningless).

From Fairfax County code on Special Permits:
(https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc-viewer.aspx#secid-2583)

The Zoning Administrator may approve a reduction in the minimum setback requirements when a building or freestanding accessory structure (whether existing or partially constructed) does not comply with the minimum setback requirements applicable at the time such building or accessory structure was erected. A reduction may be approved in accordance with the following provisions:

1. The Zoning Administrator determines that:
a. )The error does not exceed ten percent of the applicable measurement;
The owner appears to satisfy this (6 inches / 96 inch setback = 6.25%).

b. The noncompliance was done through no fault of the property owner, or was the result of an error in the location of the building or structure after the issuance of a building permit, if required;
The owner is likely at fault due to their failure to have proper surveying performed and validated both before and during construction. The owners clearly did not determine the correct layout of property lines in conjunction with the planned addition and conform their design accordingly. I read that the owner claimed to have engaged a surveyor, but there are many different levels of surveys offered and I think it is fair to assume that no comprehensive site survey with pins being laid was done , nor any sort of pre-construction stake out…the owner went the cheap route. The owner has a duty to ensure all design and construction was compliant with relevant codes and any other applicable regulations. They are the permittee and general contractor in this situation, so they are wholly responsible.

c. It will not impair the purpose and intent of this Ordinance;

d. It will not be detrimental to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity;
The next-door neighbor is now able weigh in with their opinions, which they did not have initially due to the addition being constructed by right. Given that a special permit / variance must be sought, the next-door neighbors can now go on record and offer their views to the BZA for consideration. The neighbor can weigh in on any host of subjective matters that they feel may cause them harm – it is just up to the BZA to consider and determine how much, if any weight to give them. For example, the next-door neighbor has solar panels on their home, and the addition under construction may be detrimental to their power output due to reduced insolation.

e. It will not create unsafe conditions regarding other properties or public streets;
This is debatable, as a primary reason for side yard setbacks is fire separation and public safety. The new addition contains a kitchen and six bedrooms. The most common place in a home for a fire to occur is the kitchen. The second most common place is a bedroom. If I was the next-door neighbor, I would be raising fire safety as a principal concern in opposition to allowing the structure to exceed the required 8 foot minimum setback. One can see on a street view how close the neighbor’s home is to the addition. This should be a reasonable objection to raise.

f. Compliance with the minimum setback requirements would cause the owner unreasonable hardship; and
The violation of setbacks is due to the negligence of the owner failing to perform accurate surveys and confirm that the addition conformed to minimum setbacks. There is no unreasonable hardship caused to the homeowner as this is a reasonable outcome of failing to do the proper survey work. Losing money due to a mistake of one’s own accord is not a get out of jail free card in this sort of process.

By this logic, any error would be from "negligence". But obviously they understand mistakes happen, since nearly all of these special permits are granted. Maybe fully all.

Again, an error by mistake is different from an error that is the result of negligence: as in, not taking the proper steps necessary to attempt to do the job correctly.

You really need to talk to a lawyer who can help you understand the meaning of words used in a legal sense. Words used in regulations don’t always have the same meanings they gave in common conversation. Instead, they have very particular meanings in very particular contexts. A lawyer can help to explain these regulations.