Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


If you’re not the owner, why are you pinging on the owner of the house next door? What made you think the post you were responding to was made by her?

I wrote the post you responded to and I am not the next door homeowner, just a Fairfax county resident who is interested in how this project is being handled by the county. I’ve talked to a number of people who don’t live in the immediate neighborhood where this situation is happening, but are wondering what the resolution will be and what effect it might have on the neighborhood and the property values there. No one is having a stroke, but there is a lot interest in the outcome here.


The neighbor made this a thing by going online and trying to rile people up. That's my issue. She wasn't complaining about a lack of wind bracing, or even encroachment over the setback. Originally, she had no reason to think this violated any rules. She was instead complaining because she doesn't like how it looks. And that's fine- you certainly don't have to like everything you see or everything your neighbor does. And people will naturally complain.

But there's a big difference between complaining to your friends versus 1) posting online to rally people against a community member and 2) going to the media.

This really doesn't look like a case where she's trying to kill her neighbor's project because something was done improperly. Instead it looks like she's been hoping to find a technicality to kill a project is otherwise substantively allowed. I think that's a crappy thing to do. If she wanted that sort of control over her neighbors, she should have bought a house somewhere with an HOA.

I have no doubt that several posts in this thread are from Courtney and people closely associated with her.

I have been following this thread. I do not know Courtney or anyone in her neighborhood. In fact I live miles away, but am in Fairfax County. I think Courtney has a right to free speech and a right to use the internet and media just like anyone else. I don't think she has control over her neighbor at all. Fairfax County will be the final arbiter in all of this (and it has turned out that there is a setback issue which she may or may not have known or suspected).

I think that almost anyone who has seen a picture of this addition would be concerned and have sympathy for Courtney. Whether you think it's crappy that she has the right to complain is your problem. She has that right. She was not wrong to ask the county to review the construction because, quite frankly, the county's reputation in regard to zoning is on the line here.

Your post just emphasizes the problem. The decisions should be made based on what the laws actually say, not what you wish they said. It's pretty clear that this has always been about about the design, not perceptions of construction quality or the setback. But as much as you might not like the design according to your personal aesthetic, it follows the laws of the county. Given the complexity of laws and regulations in modern society, do you really think it's a good idea for the government to use unrelated technicalities to punish legal activities in response to public political pressure? I would hope you'd see the tremendous danger in that.

It's clear in the county report that the construction is of poor quality, failing to follow approved construction methods. But hey, it's standing, let's give the builder a pass because it's just a technicality.

When you issue a stop work order in the middle of framing, you're going to find "violations."

Come on, we all know that's not the issue here.

Foundation anchors missing in various locations throughout.
Nail pattern incorrect at majority of braced wall panels throughout.

These are not technicalities. It's 30' tall. The braced wall panels are not optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


If you’re not the owner, why are you pinging on the owner of the house next door? What made you think the post you were responding to was made by her?

I wrote the post you responded to and I am not the next door homeowner, just a Fairfax county resident who is interested in how this project is being handled by the county. I’ve talked to a number of people who don’t live in the immediate neighborhood where this situation is happening, but are wondering what the resolution will be and what effect it might have on the neighborhood and the property values there. No one is having a stroke, but there is a lot interest in the outcome here.


The neighbor made this a thing by going online and trying to rile people up. That's my issue. She wasn't complaining about a lack of wind bracing, or even encroachment over the setback. Originally, she had no reason to think this violated any rules. She was instead complaining because she doesn't like how it looks. And that's fine- you certainly don't have to like everything you see or everything your neighbor does. And people will naturally complain.

But there's a big difference between complaining to your friends versus 1) posting online to rally people against a community member and 2) going to the media.

This really doesn't look like a case where she's trying to kill her neighbor's project because something was done improperly. Instead it looks like she's been hoping to find a technicality to kill a project is otherwise substantively allowed. I think that's a crappy thing to do. If she wanted that sort of control over her neighbors, she should have bought a house somewhere with an HOA.

I have no doubt that several posts in this thread are from Courtney and people closely associated with her.

I have been following this thread. I do not know Courtney or anyone in her neighborhood. In fact I live miles away, but am in Fairfax County. I think Courtney has a right to free speech and a right to use the internet and media just like anyone else. I don't think she has control over her neighbor at all. Fairfax County will be the final arbiter in all of this (and it has turned out that there is a setback issue which she may or may not have known or suspected).

I think that almost anyone who has seen a picture of this addition would be concerned and have sympathy for Courtney. Whether you think it's crappy that she has the right to complain is your problem. She has that right. She was not wrong to ask the county to review the construction because, quite frankly, the county's reputation in regard to zoning is on the line here.

Your post just emphasizes the problem. The decisions should be made based on what the laws actually say, not what you wish they said. It's pretty clear that this has always been about about the design, not perceptions of construction quality or the setback. But as much as you might not like the design according to your personal aesthetic, it follows the laws of the county. Given the complexity of laws and regulations in modern society, do you really think it's a good idea for the government to use unrelated technicalities to punish legal activities in response to public political pressure? I would hope you'd see the tremendous danger in that.

DP. It's called a loophole, buddy, and the county is already reevaluating the zoning laws so it can't happen again. In that context, yes, the county should use every means available to get rid of this POS addition that was never the intention of the original law in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


If you’re not the owner, why are you pinging on the owner of the house next door? What made you think the post you were responding to was made by her?

I wrote the post you responded to and I am not the next door homeowner, just a Fairfax county resident who is interested in how this project is being handled by the county. I’ve talked to a number of people who don’t live in the immediate neighborhood where this situation is happening, but are wondering what the resolution will be and what effect it might have on the neighborhood and the property values there. No one is having a stroke, but there is a lot interest in the outcome here.


The neighbor made this a thing by going online and trying to rile people up. That's my issue. She wasn't complaining about a lack of wind bracing, or even encroachment over the setback. Originally, she had no reason to think this violated any rules. She was instead complaining because she doesn't like how it looks. And that's fine- you certainly don't have to like everything you see or everything your neighbor does. And people will naturally complain.

But there's a big difference between complaining to your friends versus 1) posting online to rally people against a community member and 2) going to the media.

This really doesn't look like a case where she's trying to kill her neighbor's project because something was done improperly. Instead it looks like she's been hoping to find a technicality to kill a project is otherwise substantively allowed. I think that's a crappy thing to do. If she wanted that sort of control over her neighbors, she should have bought a house somewhere with an HOA.

I have no doubt that several posts in this thread are from Courtney and people closely associated with her.

I have been following this thread. I do not know Courtney or anyone in her neighborhood. In fact I live miles away, but am in Fairfax County. I think Courtney has a right to free speech and a right to use the internet and media just like anyone else. I don't think she has control over her neighbor at all. Fairfax County will be the final arbiter in all of this (and it has turned out that there is a setback issue which she may or may not have known or suspected).

I think that almost anyone who has seen a picture of this addition would be concerned and have sympathy for Courtney. Whether you think it's crappy that she has the right to complain is your problem. She has that right. She was not wrong to ask the county to review the construction because, quite frankly, the county's reputation in regard to zoning is on the line here.

Your post just emphasizes the problem. The decisions should be made based on what the laws actually say, not what you wish they said. It's pretty clear that this has always been about about the design, not perceptions of construction quality or the setback. But as much as you might not like the design according to your personal aesthetic, it follows the laws of the county. Given the complexity of laws and regulations in modern society, do you really think it's a good idea for the government to use unrelated technicalities to punish legal activities in response to public political pressure? I would hope you'd see the tremendous danger in that.

It's clear in the county report that the construction is of poor quality, failing to follow approved construction methods. But hey, it's standing, let's give the builder a pass because it's just a technicality.

When you issue a stop work order in the middle of framing, you're going to find "violations."

Come on, we all know that's not the issue here.

Foundation anchors missing in various locations throughout.
Nail pattern incorrect at majority of braced wall panels throughout.

These are not technicalities. It's 30' tall. The braced wall panels are not optional.

And those could be addressed if not for the stop work order. It's obvious they weren't done with the sheeting when the stop work order was issued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


If you’re not the owner, why are you pinging on the owner of the house next door? What made you think the post you were responding to was made by her?

I wrote the post you responded to and I am not the next door homeowner, just a Fairfax county resident who is interested in how this project is being handled by the county. I’ve talked to a number of people who don’t live in the immediate neighborhood where this situation is happening, but are wondering what the resolution will be and what effect it might have on the neighborhood and the property values there. No one is having a stroke, but there is a lot interest in the outcome here.


The neighbor made this a thing by going online and trying to rile people up. That's my issue. She wasn't complaining about a lack of wind bracing, or even encroachment over the setback. Originally, she had no reason to think this violated any rules. She was instead complaining because she doesn't like how it looks. And that's fine- you certainly don't have to like everything you see or everything your neighbor does. And people will naturally complain.

But there's a big difference between complaining to your friends versus 1) posting online to rally people against a community member and 2) going to the media.

This really doesn't look like a case where she's trying to kill her neighbor's project because something was done improperly. Instead it looks like she's been hoping to find a technicality to kill a project is otherwise substantively allowed. I think that's a crappy thing to do. If she wanted that sort of control over her neighbors, she should have bought a house somewhere with an HOA.

I have no doubt that several posts in this thread are from Courtney and people closely associated with her.

I have been following this thread. I do not know Courtney or anyone in her neighborhood. In fact I live miles away, but am in Fairfax County. I think Courtney has a right to free speech and a right to use the internet and media just like anyone else. I don't think she has control over her neighbor at all. Fairfax County will be the final arbiter in all of this (and it has turned out that there is a setback issue which she may or may not have known or suspected).

I think that almost anyone who has seen a picture of this addition would be concerned and have sympathy for Courtney. Whether you think it's crappy that she has the right to complain is your problem. She has that right. She was not wrong to ask the county to review the construction because, quite frankly, the county's reputation in regard to zoning is on the line here.

Your post just emphasizes the problem. The decisions should be made based on what the laws actually say, not what you wish they said. It's pretty clear that this has always been about about the design, not perceptions of construction quality or the setback. But as much as you might not like the design according to your personal aesthetic, it follows the laws of the county. Given the complexity of laws and regulations in modern society, do you really think it's a good idea for the government to use unrelated technicalities to punish legal activities in response to public political pressure? I would hope you'd see the tremendous danger in that.

DP. It's called a loophole, buddy, and the county is already reevaluating the zoning laws so it can't happen again. In that context, yes, the county should use every means available to get rid of this POS addition that was never the intention of the original law in the first place.

There was no loophole. You just don't like what the current law allows. Assuming you're referring to the height, this clearly adheres to a straightforward reading of the limit- no clever interpretations or complicated interactions between conditions. The implication was well understood before this addition was proposed, as anyone following the multi-unit zoning proposals would know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


If you’re not the owner, why are you pinging on the owner of the house next door? What made you think the post you were responding to was made by her?

I wrote the post you responded to and I am not the next door homeowner, just a Fairfax county resident who is interested in how this project is being handled by the county. I’ve talked to a number of people who don’t live in the immediate neighborhood where this situation is happening, but are wondering what the resolution will be and what effect it might have on the neighborhood and the property values there. No one is having a stroke, but there is a lot interest in the outcome here.


The neighbor made this a thing by going online and trying to rile people up. That's my issue. She wasn't complaining about a lack of wind bracing, or even encroachment over the setback. Originally, she had no reason to think this violated any rules. She was instead complaining because she doesn't like how it looks. And that's fine- you certainly don't have to like everything you see or everything your neighbor does. And people will naturally complain.

But there's a big difference between complaining to your friends versus 1) posting online to rally people against a community member and 2) going to the media.

This really doesn't look like a case where she's trying to kill her neighbor's project because something was done improperly. Instead it looks like she's been hoping to find a technicality to kill a project is otherwise substantively allowed. I think that's a crappy thing to do. If she wanted that sort of control over her neighbors, she should have bought a house somewhere with an HOA.

I have no doubt that several posts in this thread are from Courtney and people closely associated with her.

I have been following this thread. I do not know Courtney or anyone in her neighborhood. In fact I live miles away, but am in Fairfax County. I think Courtney has a right to free speech and a right to use the internet and media just like anyone else. I don't think she has control over her neighbor at all. Fairfax County will be the final arbiter in all of this (and it has turned out that there is a setback issue which she may or may not have known or suspected).

I think that almost anyone who has seen a picture of this addition would be concerned and have sympathy for Courtney. Whether you think it's crappy that she has the right to complain is your problem. She has that right. She was not wrong to ask the county to review the construction because, quite frankly, the county's reputation in regard to zoning is on the line here.

Your post just emphasizes the problem. The decisions should be made based on what the laws actually say, not what you wish they said. It's pretty clear that this has always been about about the design, not perceptions of construction quality or the setback. But as much as you might not like the design according to your personal aesthetic, it follows the laws of the county. Given the complexity of laws and regulations in modern society, do you really think it's a good idea for the government to use unrelated technicalities to punish legal activities in response to public political pressure? I would hope you'd see the tremendous danger in that.

DP. It's called a loophole, buddy, and the county is already reevaluating the zoning laws so it can't happen again. In that context, yes, the county should use every means available to get rid of this POS addition that was never the intention of the original law in the first place.

If the county wants to change their ordinances to prohibit something like this, that's their prerogative. But it would be wrong to effectively apply that prohibition retroactively after this homeowner obtained approval and spent a large sum of money. And whether you care to admit it, that's obviously what you're looking for here. And that seems incredibly short-sighted, unless you're in a privileged class and expect to always have substantial political influence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


If you’re not the owner, why are you pinging on the owner of the house next door? What made you think the post you were responding to was made by her?

I wrote the post you responded to and I am not the next door homeowner, just a Fairfax county resident who is interested in how this project is being handled by the county. I’ve talked to a number of people who don’t live in the immediate neighborhood where this situation is happening, but are wondering what the resolution will be and what effect it might have on the neighborhood and the property values there. No one is having a stroke, but there is a lot interest in the outcome here.


The neighbor made this a thing by going online and trying to rile people up. That's my issue. She wasn't complaining about a lack of wind bracing, or even encroachment over the setback. Originally, she had no reason to think this violated any rules. She was instead complaining because she doesn't like how it looks. And that's fine- you certainly don't have to like everything you see or everything your neighbor does. And people will naturally complain.

But there's a big difference between complaining to your friends versus 1) posting online to rally people against a community member and 2) going to the media.

This really doesn't look like a case where she's trying to kill her neighbor's project because something was done improperly. Instead it looks like she's been hoping to find a technicality to kill a project is otherwise substantively allowed. I think that's a crappy thing to do. If she wanted that sort of control over her neighbors, she should have bought a house somewhere with an HOA.

I have no doubt that several posts in this thread are from Courtney and people closely associated with her.

I have been following this thread. I do not know Courtney or anyone in her neighborhood. In fact I live miles away, but am in Fairfax County. I think Courtney has a right to free speech and a right to use the internet and media just like anyone else. I don't think she has control over her neighbor at all. Fairfax County will be the final arbiter in all of this (and it has turned out that there is a setback issue which she may or may not have known or suspected).

I think that almost anyone who has seen a picture of this addition would be concerned and have sympathy for Courtney. Whether you think it's crappy that she has the right to complain is your problem. She has that right. She was not wrong to ask the county to review the construction because, quite frankly, the county's reputation in regard to zoning is on the line here.

Your post just emphasizes the problem. The decisions should be made based on what the laws actually say, not what you wish they said. It's pretty clear that this has always been about about the design, not perceptions of construction quality or the setback. But as much as you might not like the design according to your personal aesthetic, it follows the laws of the county. Given the complexity of laws and regulations in modern society, do you really think it's a good idea for the government to use unrelated technicalities to punish legal activities in response to public political pressure? I would hope you'd see the tremendous danger in that.

It's clear in the county report that the construction is of poor quality, failing to follow approved construction methods. But hey, it's standing, let's give the builder a pass because it's just a technicality.

When you issue a stop work order in the middle of framing, you're going to find "violations."

Come on, we all know that's not the issue here.

Foundation anchors missing in various locations throughout.
Nail pattern incorrect at majority of braced wall panels throughout.

These are not technicalities. It's 30' tall. The braced wall panels are not optional.

And those could be addressed if not for the stop work order. It's obvious they weren't done with the sheeting when the stop work order was issued.

The stop work order does not mean the owner cannot address the deficiencies.
In fact that is exactly the whole point of a stop work order.

The process is as follows:
1. SWO is posted and violations are listed
2. Owner/contractor contacts Land Development Services (LDS) or the assigned inspector
3. A correction plan is reviewed
4. Inspector authorizes specific corrective work
5. Inspection occurs
6. SWO is lifted once compliance is achieved

[Anonymous]

Another issue beyond the alleged setback violation is that the Permittee has initiated design changes to their construction that does not conform with the scope of the issued permit. As noted in the Stop Work order, “7. Opening layout has changed from approved plans.”, showing there were actual design issues, in addition to the setback and craftmanship not up to code.

The Permittee filed an application for a building permit amendment on Dec 11th, seeking changes to exterior windows and interior layout. This request is now under review. The original issued permit called for the presence of a “one car front load garage”, which clearly does not exist (the cut out that is).

It is not unreasonable to say after looking at the construction as it stands now, the Permittee never intended to construct a garage for parking – there is a window cut out where a garage door should be. It is possible that in removing the garage entirely from the first permit, it may have drawn additional scrutiny due to questions about parking and public space (though not a deal breaker in and of itself).

At least from information available with the permit amendment, the Permittee appears to have hired professional help in the form of an agent from a construction risk management firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like something out of the third world.

+1

I was thinking that it looks very much like what I saw when we lived in Delhi. It's so common there to keep building onto a house to accommodate additional generations, and there is ZERO regard for neighbors or for the outer appearance. Even in 'nicer" areas. There are basically no regulations, and even if there were, you can just bribe any inspector or similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: the fence. Very often the fences are not built directly on the property lines. They are typically built several inches back to prevent any encroachment issues.

Unless its intended to be a common wall between the properties.

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another issue beyond the alleged setback violation is that the Permittee has initiated design changes to their construction that does not conform with the scope of the issued permit. As noted in the Stop Work order, “7. Opening layout has changed from approved plans.”, showing there were actual design issues, in addition to the setback and craftmanship not up to code.

The Permittee filed an application for a building permit amendment on Dec 11th, seeking changes to exterior windows and interior layout. This request is now under review. The original issued permit called for the presence of a “one car front load garage”, which clearly does not exist (the cut out that is).

It is not unreasonable to say after looking at the construction as it stands now, the Permittee never intended to construct a garage for parking – there is a window cut out where a garage door should be. It is possible that in removing the garage entirely from the first permit, it may have drawn additional scrutiny due to questions about parking and public space (though not a deal breaker in and of itself).

At least from information available with the permit amendment, the Permittee appears to have hired professional help in the form of an agent from a construction risk management firm.

Why would garage vs. no garage have mattered in the first permit? Are there parking requirements?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


If you’re not the owner, why are you pinging on the owner of the house next door? What made you think the post you were responding to was made by her?

I wrote the post you responded to and I am not the next door homeowner, just a Fairfax county resident who is interested in how this project is being handled by the county. I’ve talked to a number of people who don’t live in the immediate neighborhood where this situation is happening, but are wondering what the resolution will be and what effect it might have on the neighborhood and the property values there. No one is having a stroke, but there is a lot interest in the outcome here.


The neighbor made this a thing by going online and trying to rile people up. That's my issue. She wasn't complaining about a lack of wind bracing, or even encroachment over the setback. Originally, she had no reason to think this violated any rules. She was instead complaining because she doesn't like how it looks. And that's fine- you certainly don't have to like everything you see or everything your neighbor does. And people will naturally complain.

But there's a big difference between complaining to your friends versus 1) posting online to rally people against a community member and 2) going to the media.

This really doesn't look like a case where she's trying to kill her neighbor's project because something was done improperly. Instead it looks like she's been hoping to find a technicality to kill a project is otherwise substantively allowed. I think that's a crappy thing to do. If she wanted that sort of control over her neighbors, she should have bought a house somewhere with an HOA.

I have no doubt that several posts in this thread are from Courtney and people closely associated with her.

I have been following this thread. I do not know Courtney or anyone in her neighborhood. In fact I live miles away, but am in Fairfax County. I think Courtney has a right to free speech and a right to use the internet and media just like anyone else. I don't think she has control over her neighbor at all. Fairfax County will be the final arbiter in all of this (and it has turned out that there is a setback issue which she may or may not have known or suspected).

I think that almost anyone who has seen a picture of this addition would be concerned and have sympathy for Courtney. Whether you think it's crappy that she has the right to complain is your problem. She has that right. She was not wrong to ask the county to review the construction because, quite frankly, the county's reputation in regard to zoning is on the line here.

Your post just emphasizes the problem. The decisions should be made based on what the laws actually say, not what you wish they said. It's pretty clear that this has always been about about the design, not perceptions of construction quality or the setback. But as much as you might not like the design according to your personal aesthetic, it follows the laws of the county. Given the complexity of laws and regulations in modern society, do you really think it's a good idea for the government to use unrelated technicalities to punish legal activities in response to public political pressure? I would hope you'd see the tremendous danger in that.

It's clear in the county report that the construction is of poor quality, failing to follow approved construction methods. But hey, it's standing, let's give the builder a pass because it's just a technicality.

When you issue a stop work order in the middle of framing, you're going to find "violations."

Come on, we all know that's not the issue here.

Foundation anchors missing in various locations throughout.
Nail pattern incorrect at majority of braced wall panels throughout.

These are not technicalities. It's 30' tall. The braced wall panels are not optional.

And those could be addressed if not for the stop work order. It's obvious they weren't done with the sheeting when the stop work order was issued.

The stop work order does not mean the owner cannot address the deficiencies.
In fact that is exactly the whole point of a stop work order.

The process is as follows:
1. SWO is posted and violations are listed
2. Owner/contractor contacts Land Development Services (LDS) or the assigned inspector
3. A correction plan is reviewed
4. Inspector authorizes specific corrective work
5. Inspection occurs
6. SWO is lifted once compliance is achieved

It sounds like they can't perform the work until the inspector authorizes it. No?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another issue beyond the alleged setback violation is that the Permittee has initiated design changes to their construction that does not conform with the scope of the issued permit. As noted in the Stop Work order, “7. Opening layout has changed from approved plans.”, showing there were actual design issues, in addition to the setback and craftmanship not up to code.

The Permittee filed an application for a building permit amendment on Dec 11th, seeking changes to exterior windows and interior layout. This request is now under review. The original issued permit called for the presence of a “one car front load garage”, which clearly does not exist (the cut out that is).

It is not unreasonable to say after looking at the construction as it stands now, the Permittee never intended to construct a garage for parking – there is a window cut out where a garage door should be. It is possible that in removing the garage entirely from the first permit, it may have drawn additional scrutiny due to questions about parking and public space (though not a deal breaker in and of itself).

At least from information available with the permit amendment, the Permittee appears to have hired professional help in the form of an agent from a construction risk management firm.

Why would garage vs. no garage have mattered in the first permit? Are there parking requirements?

Fairfax County has minimum off-street parking requirements.

https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc-viewer.aspx?secid=2257#secid-2257

For a single family home, "2 spaces per unit for lots with frontage on a public street and 3 spaces per unit for lots with frontage on a private street
Accessory living unit (administrative permit): 1 additional space".

Adjustments to the off-street parking requirements may be made by the BZA, however this requires the permittee to apply for a variance and show that:

a)Fewer spaces than those required by this Article will adequately serve the use; and
b)The adjustment will not adversely affect the site or the adjacent area.

Without the garage that was included in the original permit, the home no longer has the minimum of two off-street parking spaces. There was a mechanism for the Permittee to seek an exception from the start to eliminate the parking garage portion of the addition before commencing construction, though they did not do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isn't a house addition, it's an apartment building.

I thought it looked like a Super 8 motel.

That and it looks awful close to the property line, I couldn’t build a shed that close to my property line, how can you build a 3 story building.

FFX county is a mess!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another issue beyond the alleged setback violation is that the Permittee has initiated design changes to their construction that does not conform with the scope of the issued permit. As noted in the Stop Work order, “7. Opening layout has changed from approved plans.”, showing there were actual design issues, in addition to the setback and craftmanship not up to code.

The Permittee filed an application for a building permit amendment on Dec 11th, seeking changes to exterior windows and interior layout. This request is now under review. The original issued permit called for the presence of a “one car front load garage”, which clearly does not exist (the cut out that is).

It is not unreasonable to say after looking at the construction as it stands now, the Permittee never intended to construct a garage for parking – there is a window cut out where a garage door should be. It is possible that in removing the garage entirely from the first permit, it may have drawn additional scrutiny due to questions about parking and public space (though not a deal breaker in and of itself).

At least from information available with the permit amendment, the Permittee appears to have hired professional help in the form of an agent from a construction risk management firm.

Why would garage vs. no garage have mattered in the first permit? Are there parking requirements?

Fairfax County has minimum off-street parking requirements.

https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc-viewer.aspx?secid=2257#secid-2257

For a single family home, "2 spaces per unit for lots with frontage on a public street and 3 spaces per unit for lots with frontage on a private street
Accessory living unit (administrative permit): 1 additional space".

Adjustments to the off-street parking requirements may be made by the BZA, however this requires the permittee to apply for a variance and show that:

a)Fewer spaces than those required by this Article will adequately serve the use; and
b)The adjustment will not adversely affect the site or the adjacent area.

Without the garage that was included in the original permit, the home no longer has the minimum of two off-street parking spaces. There was a mechanism for the Permittee to seek an exception from the start to eliminate the parking garage portion of the addition before commencing construction, though they did not do this.

Interesting. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That addition is so so bad. And completely out of place for that neighborhood. Those poor neighbors who are stuck living next to it. Good for them for raising awareness to stop
That monstrosity but how awful to have that tension with your next door neighbor. There’s no coming back from this.

Even worse, the neighbor’s property value just took a major hit. Who would want to buy a house next to that awful thing.

This. I feel terrible for the neighbors.

Another Asian family would snap it up in a heartbeat. The homeowner will be fine, but it does suck if she likes her neighborhood and doesn’t want to leave.

White flight is real, and this is how it starts, sell now, and move further out.