Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious how it’s doing this morning?

What do you mean?

The nasty wind and such. Just curious how the structure is holding.

If you're concerned about that, tell the county to release the stop-work-order and let them finish the sheeting. They'd still need to pass the structural inspection before doing the insulation and drywall. The problem is that political pressure caused the county to come out while they were still framing.

Um, the county can’t release the stop-work order because it appears that the building foundation was placed over the setback line. They need to complete their investigation into this deviation from the permit first.

It wouldn’t make sense to allow the building process to continue if there is a possibility that serious changes will need to be made to the structure to bring it into compliance. It wouldn’t be fair to the homeowners to allow them to spend more money which they could end up possibly losing.

It's 6 inches. They've always approved these. Even the article referenced earlier suggested this was perfuctory.

What’s the process for approving deviations from what was stated in the permit application? Has that process taken place? If not, the construction cannot proceed until there is some sort of decision by the county.

We’ve had some setback problems in my neighborhood with sheds, and there were no permits issued originally. The homeowners on the same block all received notifications that there was a hearing and were encouraged to voice their opinions. In the one on my block, one neighbor spoke against allowing the setback violation but the others were all fine with it, so it was allowed.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. The first step to this mess is resolving the setback issue. I imagine that will take a bit of time.

In the mean time so that the current structure doesn’t fall apart, I would think they would want to weatherproof the existing plywood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. The first step to this mess is resolving the setback issue. I imagine that will take a bit of time.

In the mean time so that the current structure doesn’t fall apart, I would think they would want to weatherproof the existing plywood.

The homeowners might not want to spend money on weatherproofing when they might have to spend more money later to fix whatever the county decides needs to be fixed. Money is tight, apparently, which is why they were trying to do this as inexpensively as possible in the first place. No architect, no GC, no professional building survey- lots of shortcuts to save money.

[Anonymous]

Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

Setbacks exist for actual reasons. When people are living in relatively close proximity, we need rules and regulations about building structures on our privately owned properties. If we are living on several acres with no near neighbors, we can pretty much do what we want, but the situation is very different in city/suburban areas.

Zoning regulations are necessary in areas where people live in closer proximity. Unfortunately, not everyone treats their neighbors the way they would like to be treated, so we need rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

The property line may not be a straight line, so while the structure might be built on a straight line, that doesn't mean that it mets the entire set back if the property line isn't straight.

[Anonymous]

Crappy builder found this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Crappy builder found this thread.

Doesn’t the permit say that the homeowner and the contractor are the same person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crappy builder found this thread.

Doesn’t the permit say that the homeowner and the contractor are the same person?

No. Homeowner is one guy (and sometimes his wife). Other family member is crappy builder and contractor and apparently, a DCUM enthusiast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

The property line may not be a straight line, so while the structure might be built on a straight line, that doesn't mean that it mets the entire set back if the property line isn't straight.

Right, but the point is that the rear of the structure only seems to extend 5 feet further back than the original structure. If the new structure is crosses the 8ft line, then the original one did, too. There's no significant difference here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

The property line may not be a straight line, so while the structure might be built on a straight line, that doesn't mean that it mets the entire set back if the property line isn't straight.

Right, but the point is that the rear of the structure only seems to extend 5 feet further back than the original structure. If the new structure is crosses the 8ft line, then the original one did, too. There's no significant difference here.

You really can’t ascertain anything about property lines by looking at an aerial photo available online. You need to be looking at a professional survey that was produced for the purpose of building a structure. This type of survey was apparently not done for this project, so it is possible that the foundation of the new extension was following the lines correctly.

My understanding is that the county is investigating the situation. It’s more complicated than just looking at a picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

The property line may not be a straight line, so while the structure might be built on a straight line, that doesn't mean that it mets the entire set back if the property line isn't straight.

Right, but the point is that the rear of the structure only seems to extend 5 feet further back than the original structure. If the new structure is crosses the 8ft line, then the original one did, too. There's no significant difference here.

There certainly can be a difference. If the actual property line is different from the line the contractor was following, then the new foundation could be crossing over the setback line. Hard to tell without looking at a survey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crappy builder found this thread.

Doesn’t the permit say that the homeowner and the contractor are the same person?

No. Homeowner is one guy (and sometimes his wife). Other family member is crappy builder and contractor and apparently, a DCUM enthusiast.

But doesn’t the permit say that the homeowner is the contractor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crappy builder found this thread.

Doesn’t the permit say that the homeowner and the contractor are the same person?

No. Homeowner is one guy (and sometimes his wife). Other family member is crappy builder and contractor and apparently, a DCUM enthusiast.

But doesn’t the permit say that the homeowner is the contractor?

Homeowner’s name from the public tax records is listed on the building permit. Also th question on the permit about the homeowner being thr GC is marked as yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

I thought the line in question was not the back of the house - but the side of the house. And it’s a huge difference between having a small one story structure 6 inches to close, and a massive 3 story 60 foot long structure 6 inches too close.
Also, two wrongs don’t make a right.