Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The more that comes out, the more it is clear the homeowner and builder submitted permits to build up to the max and then thought they could fudge things during construction — just go a little over the set back, get rid of a garage, etc. But they pushed it too far and got on the public and the county’s radar.

To the PP who keeps bleating that zoning laws are the law, so we shouldn’t criticize this build, why are you assuming the current structure actually follows current regs? It seems like it very well may not.

At this point I’m team neighbor for flagging this. Under the circumstances, county review seems entirely appropriate. In fact I imagine many county residents want their tax dollars to be used to actually catch this type of thing so that it won’t become a trend throughout the county.

I've been defending the addition, largely because the comments and complaints have obviously been reacting to the (legal) height and design. I would have a major problem with using other issues to kill this project retroactively if they wouldn't do so for other projects.

But, this garage issue looks suspiciously deliberate. I'm not cool with that.

The county will stop any project that doesn't follow code if they find out about it. That includes sheds.

Stopping =/= killing.

In many cases, problems are correctable. Here we have people basically saying construction errors like what the inspector found shouldn't be allowed to be corrected, but instead should be used to justify killing the project.

Other things- namely the setback issue- aren't really correctable. My understanding is that the current laws allow the county to weigh the significance of the issue against the practical ability to remediate, and the county has consistently allowed small setback encroachments made in error to proceed when it would be prohibitively expensive to correct. That wouldn't necessarily be the same in the case of sheds, which would be far cheaper to change. If the county would otherwise allow the 6 inch encroachment in other projects, they should similarly allow it here.

I don't know what typically happens in cases like the garage change, which doesn't look like an error to me. I doubt it is the first time it has come up, though.

Why are setback issues not correctable? Why can’t they just take down the part of the wall that goes over the setback and rebuild on the proper line? If the big issue is the setback, it seems that the easiest thing would be to take down that wall and rebuild it six or so inches over.

If the owner rebuilt the wall behind the setback and then hired a full time GC who would make sure the construction met higher quality standards, it appears he could proceed, no? So why fight for a special permit or variance when just taking down and rebuilding that side would fix the primary problem with the project?

Also, they would have to very strictly adhere to the permit application they filed. The county sees that they have deviated from the previously approved permit, so they might be more likely to inspect more carefully and frequently going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The more that comes out, the more it is clear the homeowner and builder submitted permits to build up to the max and then thought they could fudge things during construction — just go a little over the set back, get rid of a garage, etc. But they pushed it too far and got on the public and the county’s radar.

To the PP who keeps bleating that zoning laws are the law, so we shouldn’t criticize this build, why are you assuming the current structure actually follows current regs? It seems like it very well may not.

At this point I’m team neighbor for flagging this. Under the circumstances, county review seems entirely appropriate. In fact I imagine many county residents want their tax dollars to be used to actually catch this type of thing so that it won’t become a trend throughout the county.

I've been defending the addition, largely because the comments and complaints have obviously been reacting to the (legal) height and design. I would have a major problem with using other issues to kill this project retroactively if they wouldn't do so for other projects.

But, this garage issue looks suspiciously deliberate. I'm not cool with that.

The county will stop any project that doesn't follow code if they find out about it. That includes sheds.

Stopping =/= killing.

In many cases, problems are correctable. Here we have people basically saying construction errors like what the inspector found shouldn't be allowed to be corrected, but instead should be used to justify killing the project.

Other things- namely the setback issue- aren't really correctable. My understanding is that the current laws allow the county to weigh the significance of the issue against the practical ability to remediate, and the county has consistently allowed small setback encroachments made in error to proceed when it would be prohibitively expensive to correct. That wouldn't necessarily be the same in the case of sheds, which would be far cheaper to change. If the county would otherwise allow the 6 inch encroachment in other projects, they should similarly allow it here.

I don't know what typically happens in cases like the garage change, which doesn't look like an error to me. I doubt it is the first time it has come up, though.

I sincerely respect your advocacy and your reasoned and respectful approach to discourse. It is always complicated when things within a system are in direct contradiction, like in this case where the BZA can make a ruling, but if it is appealed to the courts, then they take over and can apply a totally different standard and invalidate the BZA's earlier ruling.

These issues do happen all the time, and the BZA often grants exceptions to offending parties. In most cases, that is the end of the story as it is generally never worth it for an aggrieved party to pursue an appeal to the courts. In this case, it may well be worth it for the nextdoor neighbor to pursue an appeal should a variance be granted. The conundrum here is that any approval can be appealed (as well as any denial), and then the standard the Court takes to evaluating the situation is totally different than the BZA, and the court is the one with the ultimate authority if it makes it that far. As unfair as it is, that is the way the system works today - we and we have to live with that in this moment.

The sunk costs of the addition (and any remediation costs) are not likely to be considered an unreasonable financial hardship, as they are due to the owner's fault and own personal choices. This is a quagmire, and I feel some sympathy for the home owner in certain ways, but there are other ways I do not have sympathy for them. This is truly a "Schrodingers Addition" where two diametrically opposed things can be simultaneously true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The more that comes out, the more it is clear the homeowner and builder submitted permits to build up to the max and then thought they could fudge things during construction — just go a little over the set back, get rid of a garage, etc. But they pushed it too far and got on the public and the county’s radar.

To the PP who keeps bleating that zoning laws are the law, so we shouldn’t criticize this build, why are you assuming the current structure actually follows current regs? It seems like it very well may not.

At this point I’m team neighbor for flagging this. Under the circumstances, county review seems entirely appropriate. In fact I imagine many county residents want their tax dollars to be used to actually catch this type of thing so that it won’t become a trend throughout the county.

I've been defending the addition, largely because the comments and complaints have obviously been reacting to the (legal) height and design. I would have a major problem with using other issues to kill this project retroactively if they wouldn't do so for other projects.

But, this garage issue looks suspiciously deliberate. I'm not cool with that.

The county will stop any project that doesn't follow code if they find out about it. That includes sheds.

Stopping =/= killing.

In many cases, problems are correctable. Here we have people basically saying construction errors like what the inspector found shouldn't be allowed to be corrected, but instead should be used to justify killing the project.

Other things- namely the setback issue- aren't really correctable. My understanding is that the current laws allow the county to weigh the significance of the issue against the practical ability to remediate, and the county has consistently allowed small setback encroachments made in error to proceed when it would be prohibitively expensive to correct. That wouldn't necessarily be the same in the case of sheds, which would be far cheaper to change. If the county would otherwise allow the 6 inch encroachment in other projects, they should similarly allow it here.

I don't know what typically happens in cases like the garage change, which doesn't look like an error to me. I doubt it is the first time it has come up, though.

Why are setback issues not correctable? Why can’t they just take down the part of the wall that goes over the setback and rebuild on the proper line? If the big issue is the setback, it seems that the easiest thing would be to take down that wall and rebuild it six or so inches over.

If the owner rebuilt the wall behind the setback and then hired a full time GC who would make sure the construction met higher quality standards, it appears he could proceed, no? So why fight for a special permit or variance when just taking down and rebuilding that side would fix the primary problem with the project?

Also, they would have to very strictly adhere to the permit application they filed. The county sees that they have deviated from the previously approved permit, so they might be more likely to inspect more carefully and frequently going forward.

The county doesn't ask for higher standards. The county is asking for *minimum* standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The more that comes out, the more it is clear the homeowner and builder submitted permits to build up to the max and then thought they could fudge things during construction — just go a little over the set back, get rid of a garage, etc. But they pushed it too far and got on the public and the county’s radar.

To the PP who keeps bleating that zoning laws are the law, so we shouldn’t criticize this build, why are you assuming the current structure actually follows current regs? It seems like it very well may not.

At this point I’m team neighbor for flagging this. Under the circumstances, county review seems entirely appropriate. In fact I imagine many county residents want their tax dollars to be used to actually catch this type of thing so that it won’t become a trend throughout the county.

I've been defending the addition, largely because the comments and complaints have obviously been reacting to the (legal) height and design. I would have a major problem with using other issues to kill this project retroactively if they wouldn't do so for other projects.

But, this garage issue looks suspiciously deliberate. I'm not cool with that.

The county will stop any project that doesn't follow code if they find out about it. That includes sheds.

Stopping =/= killing.

In many cases, problems are correctable. Here we have people basically saying construction errors like what the inspector found shouldn't be allowed to be corrected, but instead should be used to justify killing the project.

Other things- namely the setback issue- aren't really correctable. My understanding is that the current laws allow the county to weigh the significance of the issue against the practical ability to remediate, and the county has consistently allowed small setback encroachments made in error to proceed when it would be prohibitively expensive to correct. That wouldn't necessarily be the same in the case of sheds, which would be far cheaper to change. If the county would otherwise allow the 6 inch encroachment in other projects, they should similarly allow it here.

I don't know what typically happens in cases like the garage change, which doesn't look like an error to me. I doubt it is the first time it has come up, though.

Why are setback issues not correctable? Why can’t they just take down the part of the wall that goes over the setback and rebuild on the proper line? If the big issue is the setback, it seems that the easiest thing would be to take down that wall and rebuild it six or so inches over.

If the owner rebuilt the wall behind the setback and then hired a full time GC who would make sure the construction met higher quality standards, it appears he could proceed, no? So why fight for a special permit or variance when just taking down and rebuilding that side would fix the primary problem with the project?

Also, they would have to very strictly adhere to the permit application they filed. The county sees that they have deviated from the previously approved permit, so they might be more likely to inspect more carefully and frequently going forward.

The county doesn't ask for higher standards. The county is asking for *minimum* standards.

Right. But as of now, this project is not meeting those minimum standards, so it needs to meet higher standards than it presently is meeting just to get to the county minimum standards. The present GC hasn’t been able to meet the minimum standards, so hiring a new one may be the way to go.

So the question is, if this homeowner took down the wall that goes over the setback line and rebuilt it behind the line (maybe even a few extra inches behind the line, just to on the safe side), should they be able to proceed with the project as it is presently permitted? Okay, and fix the garage situation also.

Why doesn’t the homeowner just say, okay, I’ll take it down and rebuild according to the rules? Wouldn’t that be better than just waiting and waiting for hearings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The more that comes out, the more it is clear the homeowner and builder submitted permits to build up to the max and then thought they could fudge things during construction — just go a little over the set back, get rid of a garage, etc. But they pushed it too far and got on the public and the county’s radar.

To the PP who keeps bleating that zoning laws are the law, so we shouldn’t criticize this build, why are you assuming the current structure actually follows current regs? It seems like it very well may not.

At this point I’m team neighbor for flagging this. Under the circumstances, county review seems entirely appropriate. In fact I imagine many county residents want their tax dollars to be used to actually catch this type of thing so that it won’t become a trend throughout the county.

I've been defending the addition, largely because the comments and complaints have obviously been reacting to the (legal) height and design. I would have a major problem with using other issues to kill this project retroactively if they wouldn't do so for other projects.

But, this garage issue looks suspiciously deliberate. I'm not cool with that.

The county will stop any project that doesn't follow code if they find out about it. That includes sheds.

Stopping =/= killing.

In many cases, problems are correctable. Here we have people basically saying construction errors like what the inspector found shouldn't be allowed to be corrected, but instead should be used to justify killing the project.

Other things- namely the setback issue- aren't really correctable. My understanding is that the current laws allow the county to weigh the significance of the issue against the practical ability to remediate, and the county has consistently allowed small setback encroachments made in error to proceed when it would be prohibitively expensive to correct. That wouldn't necessarily be the same in the case of sheds, which would be far cheaper to change. If the county would otherwise allow the 6 inch encroachment in other projects, they should similarly allow it here.

I don't know what typically happens in cases like the garage change, which doesn't look like an error to me. I doubt it is the first time it has come up, though.

Why are setback issues not correctable? Why can’t they just take down the part of the wall that goes over the setback and rebuild on the proper line? If the big issue is the setback, it seems that the easiest thing would be to take down that wall and rebuild it six or so inches over.

If the owner rebuilt the wall behind the setback and then hired a full time GC who would make sure the construction met higher quality standards, it appears he could proceed, no? So why fight for a special permit or variance when just taking down and rebuilding that side would fix the primary problem with the project?

Also, they would have to very strictly adhere to the permit application they filed. The county sees that they have deviated from the previously approved permit, so they might be more likely to inspect more carefully and frequently going forward.

The county doesn't ask for higher standards. The county is asking for *minimum* standards.

Right. But as of now, this project is not meeting those minimum standards, so it needs to meet higher standards than it presently is meeting just to get to the county minimum standards. The present GC hasn’t been able to meet the minimum standards, so hiring a new one may be the way to go.

So the question is, if this homeowner took down the wall that goes over the setback line and rebuilt it behind the line (maybe even a few extra inches behind the line, just to on the safe side), should they be able to proceed with the project as it is presently permitted? Okay, and fix the garage situation also.

Why doesn’t the homeowner just say, okay, I’ll take it down and rebuild according to the rules? Wouldn’t that be better than just waiting and waiting for hearings?

DP and I think this addition is aesthetically hideous. But I live in Arlington so I’m somewhat used to ugly boxes up to the min setback 😂 (I still love my neighborhood though). So I’d say if the homeowner/builder follow the regs and goes by the approved permit then they should be allowed to build it. It’s not against the law to be tacky.

That said I would personally die from embarrassment if my house design choices were so ugly it made the local news.

However, if they are over the setback and fudging the exterior design (including sneakily trying to get out of parking minimums — while also building a place for family members who will add multiple cars), then they should be required to fix this. And I can understand how the BZA and even surrounding neighbors may usually let a few inches go when the scope of the build is generally more modest and in character with the neighborhood. But when you are building to the absolute height max then don’t be greedy and try to get an extra half foot of space between you and your neighbor’s house. It just displays a general disregard for the rules and lack of courtesy for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The more that comes out, the more it is clear the homeowner and builder submitted permits to build up to the max and then thought they could fudge things during construction — just go a little over the set back, get rid of a garage, etc. But they pushed it too far and got on the public and the county’s radar.

To the PP who keeps bleating that zoning laws are the law, so we shouldn’t criticize this build, why are you assuming the current structure actually follows current regs? It seems like it very well may not.

At this point I’m team neighbor for flagging this. Under the circumstances, county review seems entirely appropriate. In fact I imagine many county residents want their tax dollars to be used to actually catch this type of thing so that it won’t become a trend throughout the county.

I've been defending the addition, largely because the comments and complaints have obviously been reacting to the (legal) height and design. I would have a major problem with using other issues to kill this project retroactively if they wouldn't do so for other projects.

But, this garage issue looks suspiciously deliberate. I'm not cool with that.

The county will stop any project that doesn't follow code if they find out about it. That includes sheds.

Stopping =/= killing.

In many cases, problems are correctable. Here we have people basically saying construction errors like what the inspector found shouldn't be allowed to be corrected, but instead should be used to justify killing the project.

Other things- namely the setback issue- aren't really correctable. My understanding is that the current laws allow the county to weigh the significance of the issue against the practical ability to remediate, and the county has consistently allowed small setback encroachments made in error to proceed when it would be prohibitively expensive to correct. That wouldn't necessarily be the same in the case of sheds, which would be far cheaper to change. If the county would otherwise allow the 6 inch encroachment in other projects, they should similarly allow it here.

I don't know what typically happens in cases like the garage change, which doesn't look like an error to me. I doubt it is the first time it has come up, though.

Why are setback issues not correctable? Why can’t they just take down the part of the wall that goes over the setback and rebuild on the proper line? If the big issue is the setback, it seems that the easiest thing would be to take down that wall and rebuild it six or so inches over.

If the owner rebuilt the wall behind the setback and then hired a full time GC who would make sure the construction met higher quality standards, it appears he could proceed, no? So why fight for a special permit or variance when just taking down and rebuilding that side would fix the primary problem with the project?

Also, they would have to very strictly adhere to the permit application they filed. The county sees that they have deviated from the previously approved permit, so they might be more likely to inspect more carefully and frequently going forward.

The county doesn't ask for higher standards. The county is asking for *minimum* standards.

Right. But as of now, this project is not meeting those minimum standards, so it needs to meet higher standards than it presently is meeting just to get to the county minimum standards. The present GC hasn’t been able to meet the minimum standards, so hiring a new one may be the way to go.

So the question is, if this homeowner took down the wall that goes over the setback line and rebuilt it behind the line (maybe even a few extra inches behind the line, just to on the safe side), should they be able to proceed with the project as it is presently permitted? Okay, and fix the garage situation also.

Why doesn’t the homeowner just say, okay, I’ll take it down and rebuild according to the rules? Wouldn’t that be better than just waiting and waiting for hearings?

Higher implies that the builder is being held to a different, more strict, standard. The builder failed to meet even the minimum standards. No one is asking for higher standards.

Waiting costs nothing. Tearing down and rebuilding would mean another permitting cycle since what is being built wouldn't match the existing drawings. I will boldly assume an architect was involved at some point. You will need him to modify or review the plans. You can't just chop off 6" without some engineering review. It's likely the foundation is also too close as well. That will be hard to chop off.

[Anonymous]

Listen whitey, in our culture we don't send our parents to the nursing home. We build a full "Sunrise" facility for them attached to our house and if some of it encroaches on your property that's just too bad. Check your privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The more that comes out, the more it is clear the homeowner and builder submitted permits to build up to the max and then thought they could fudge things during construction — just go a little over the set back, get rid of a garage, etc. But they pushed it too far and got on the public and the county’s radar.

To the PP who keeps bleating that zoning laws are the law, so we shouldn’t criticize this build, why are you assuming the current structure actually follows current regs? It seems like it very well may not.

At this point I’m team neighbor for flagging this. Under the circumstances, county review seems entirely appropriate. In fact I imagine many county residents want their tax dollars to be used to actually catch this type of thing so that it won’t become a trend throughout the county.

I've been defending the addition, largely because the comments and complaints have obviously been reacting to the (legal) height and design. I would have a major problem with using other issues to kill this project retroactively if they wouldn't do so for other projects.

But, this garage issue looks suspiciously deliberate. I'm not cool with that.

The county will stop any project that doesn't follow code if they find out about it. That includes sheds.

Stopping =/= killing.

In many cases, problems are correctable. Here we have people basically saying construction errors like what the inspector found shouldn't be allowed to be corrected, but instead should be used to justify killing the project.

Other things- namely the setback issue- aren't really correctable. My understanding is that the current laws allow the county to weigh the significance of the issue against the practical ability to remediate, and the county has consistently allowed small setback encroachments made in error to proceed when it would be prohibitively expensive to correct. That wouldn't necessarily be the same in the case of sheds, which would be far cheaper to change. If the county would otherwise allow the 6 inch encroachment in other projects, they should similarly allow it here.

I don't know what typically happens in cases like the garage change, which doesn't look like an error to me. I doubt it is the first time it has come up, though.

Why are setback issues not correctable? Why can’t they just take down the part of the wall that goes over the setback and rebuild on the proper line? If the big issue is the setback, it seems that the easiest thing would be to take down that wall and rebuild it six or so inches over.

If the owner rebuilt the wall behind the setback and then hired a full time GC who would make sure the construction met higher quality standards, it appears he could proceed, no? So why fight for a special permit or variance when just taking down and rebuilding that side would fix the primary problem with the project?

Also, they would have to very strictly adhere to the permit application they filed. The county sees that they have deviated from the previously approved permit, so they might be more likely to inspect more carefully and frequently going forward.

The county doesn't ask for higher standards. The county is asking for *minimum* standards.

Right. But as of now, this project is not meeting those minimum standards, so it needs to meet higher standards than it presently is meeting just to get to the county minimum standards. The present GC hasn’t been able to meet the minimum standards, so hiring a new one may be the way to go.

So the question is, if this homeowner took down the wall that goes over the setback line and rebuilt it behind the line (maybe even a few extra inches behind the line, just to on the safe side), should they be able to proceed with the project as it is presently permitted? Okay, and fix the garage situation also.

Why doesn’t the homeowner just say, okay, I’ll take it down and rebuild according to the rules? Wouldn’t that be better than just waiting and waiting for hearings?

Higher implies that the builder is being held to a different, more strict, standard. The builder failed to meet even the minimum standards. No one is asking for higher standards.

Waiting costs nothing. Tearing down and rebuilding would mean another permitting cycle since what is being built wouldn't match the existing drawings. I will boldly assume an architect was involved at some point. You will need him to modify or review the plans. You can't just chop off 6" without some engineering review. It's likely the foundation is also too close as well. That will be hard to chop off.

In the context of the paragraph above, “higher” means higher than the low standards that were not meeting the minimum county standards, not a “different, more strict standard.” The standards before were too low to meet the minimums, so now they need to be raised enough to meet that minimum.

In the long run, it would be less expensive to tear down and rebuild in a way that meets standards. This project could end up sitting in the weather and suffering the effects of that. Waiting will also cost in terms of hiring experts to aid in applying to the county to allow the construction. And then, in the end, no one knows what the decision will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The more that comes out, the more it is clear the homeowner and builder submitted permits to build up to the max and then thought they could fudge things during construction — just go a little over the set back, get rid of a garage, etc. But they pushed it too far and got on the public and the county’s radar.

To the PP who keeps bleating that zoning laws are the law, so we shouldn’t criticize this build, why are you assuming the current structure actually follows current regs? It seems like it very well may not.

At this point I’m team neighbor for flagging this. Under the circumstances, county review seems entirely appropriate. In fact I imagine many county residents want their tax dollars to be used to actually catch this type of thing so that it won’t become a trend throughout the county.

I've been defending the addition, largely because the comments and complaints have obviously been reacting to the (legal) height and design. I would have a major problem with using other issues to kill this project retroactively if they wouldn't do so for other projects.

But, this garage issue looks suspiciously deliberate. I'm not cool with that.

The county will stop any project that doesn't follow code if they find out about it. That includes sheds.

Stopping =/= killing.

In many cases, problems are correctable. Here we have people basically saying construction errors like what the inspector found shouldn't be allowed to be corrected, but instead should be used to justify killing the project.

Other things- namely the setback issue- aren't really correctable. My understanding is that the current laws allow the county to weigh the significance of the issue against the practical ability to remediate, and the county has consistently allowed small setback encroachments made in error to proceed when it would be prohibitively expensive to correct. That wouldn't necessarily be the same in the case of sheds, which would be far cheaper to change. If the county would otherwise allow the 6 inch encroachment in other projects, they should similarly allow it here.

I don't know what typically happens in cases like the garage change, which doesn't look like an error to me. I doubt it is the first time it has come up, though.

Why are setback issues not correctable? Why can’t they just take down the part of the wall that goes over the setback and rebuild on the proper line? If the big issue is the setback, it seems that the easiest thing would be to take down that wall and rebuild it six or so inches over.

If the owner rebuilt the wall behind the setback and then hired a full time GC who would make sure the construction met higher quality standards, it appears he could proceed, no? So why fight for a special permit or variance when just taking down and rebuilding that side would fix the primary problem with the project?

Also, they would have to very strictly adhere to the permit application they filed. The county sees that they have deviated from the previously approved permit, so they might be more likely to inspect more carefully and frequently going forward.

"Just take down" a load-bearing, exterior wall? That's not simple, to say the least, and may not be possible. I don't know how this is designed, but suppose it uses floor trusses. You can't just move the wall over and cut the extra/overhanging 6 inches of the truss.

It might be possible. Maybe. It would certainly be very expensive, have structural risks, and result in something that would look even stranger than the current design.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The more that comes out, the more it is clear the homeowner and builder submitted permits to build up to the max and then thought they could fudge things during construction — just go a little over the set back, get rid of a garage, etc. But they pushed it too far and got on the public and the county’s radar.

To the PP who keeps bleating that zoning laws are the law, so we shouldn’t criticize this build, why are you assuming the current structure actually follows current regs? It seems like it very well may not.

At this point I’m team neighbor for flagging this. Under the circumstances, county review seems entirely appropriate. In fact I imagine many county residents want their tax dollars to be used to actually catch this type of thing so that it won’t become a trend throughout the county.

I've been defending the addition, largely because the comments and complaints have obviously been reacting to the (legal) height and design. I would have a major problem with using other issues to kill this project retroactively if they wouldn't do so for other projects.

But, this garage issue looks suspiciously deliberate. I'm not cool with that.

The county will stop any project that doesn't follow code if they find out about it. That includes sheds.

Stopping =/= killing.

In many cases, problems are correctable. Here we have people basically saying construction errors like what the inspector found shouldn't be allowed to be corrected, but instead should be used to justify killing the project.

Other things- namely the setback issue- aren't really correctable. My understanding is that the current laws allow the county to weigh the significance of the issue against the practical ability to remediate, and the county has consistently allowed small setback encroachments made in error to proceed when it would be prohibitively expensive to correct. That wouldn't necessarily be the same in the case of sheds, which would be far cheaper to change. If the county would otherwise allow the 6 inch encroachment in other projects, they should similarly allow it here.

I don't know what typically happens in cases like the garage change, which doesn't look like an error to me. I doubt it is the first time it has come up, though.

Why are setback issues not correctable? Why can’t they just take down the part of the wall that goes over the setback and rebuild on the proper line? If the big issue is the setback, it seems that the easiest thing would be to take down that wall and rebuild it six or so inches over.

If the owner rebuilt the wall behind the setback and then hired a full time GC who would make sure the construction met higher quality standards, it appears he could proceed, no? So why fight for a special permit or variance when just taking down and rebuilding that side would fix the primary problem with the project?

Also, they would have to very strictly adhere to the permit application they filed. The county sees that they have deviated from the previously approved permit, so they might be more likely to inspect more carefully and frequently going forward.

The county doesn't ask for higher standards. The county is asking for *minimum* standards.

Right. But as of now, this project is not meeting those minimum standards, so it needs to meet higher standards than it presently is meeting just to get to the county minimum standards. The present GC hasn’t been able to meet the minimum standards, so hiring a new one may be the way to go.

So the question is, if this homeowner took down the wall that goes over the setback line and rebuilt it behind the line (maybe even a few extra inches behind the line, just to on the safe side), should they be able to proceed with the project as it is presently permitted? Okay, and fix the garage situation also.

Why doesn’t the homeowner just say, okay, I’ll take it down and rebuild according to the rules? Wouldn’t that be better than just waiting and waiting for hearings?

DP and I think this addition is aesthetically hideous. But I live in Arlington so I’m somewhat used to ugly boxes up to the min setback 😂 (I still love my neighborhood though). So I’d say if the homeowner/builder follow the regs and goes by the approved permit then they should be allowed to build it. It’s not against the law to be tacky.

That said I would personally die from embarrassment if my house design choices were so ugly it made the local news.

However, if they are over the setback and fudging the exterior design (including sneakily trying to get out of parking minimums — while also building a place for family members who will add multiple cars), then they should be required to fix this. And I can understand how the BZA and even surrounding neighbors may usually let a few inches go when the scope of the build is generally more modest and in character with the neighborhood. But when you are building to the absolute height max then don’t be greedy and try to get an extra half foot of space between you and your neighbor’s house. It just displays a general disregard for the rules and lack of courtesy for others.

Do you really think they were being "greedy" and tried to get an extra half a foot? I suppose it's possible, but that seems like an awfully expensive bet to make that it wouldn't create problems. More likely, I think the fact that the addition is mostly in the footprint of the original structure made them (falsely) assume that the new structure must be done. A careless mistake, and one they're paying dearly for.

I have a hard time believing the posts here suggesting rebuilds are genuine. Do you really believe that those 6 inches, some of which were likely encroached by the original structure, are worth spending the time and money, and wasting the building materials, to remediate? I could imagine someone making a point on slippery slopes and the need for consistent objectivity dictating that. I don't necessarily agree, but I don't think it would be an unreasonable position to take. But that doesn't seem to be the idea. It seems like it is more motivated by a desire to punish the homeowner here rather than an attempt to genuinely seek a substantive change.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think anyone wants to punish the homeowner, but the fact is it is an ugly monstrosity that no one wants to leave near.

The homeowner took the stance that the structure is within county regs and his right to build it, so tough luck. It’s equally within the right of others to make sure it’s built according to plans approved and vocalize their displeasure at the structure. Cannot be supportive one sides “rights” and not the others.

[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: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.

The more that comes out, the more it is clear the homeowner and builder submitted permits to build up to the max and then thought they could fudge things during construction — just go a little over the set back, get rid of a garage, etc. But they pushed it too far and got on the public and the county’s radar.

To the PP who keeps bleating that zoning laws are the law, so we shouldn’t criticize this build, why are you assuming the current structure actually follows current regs? It seems like it very well may not.

At this point I’m team neighbor for flagging this. Under the circumstances, county review seems entirely appropriate. In fact I imagine many county residents want their tax dollars to be used to actually catch this type of thing so that it won’t become a trend throughout the county.

I've been defending the addition, largely because the comments and complaints have obviously been reacting to the (legal) height and design. I would have a major problem with using other issues to kill this project retroactively if they wouldn't do so for other projects.

But, this garage issue looks suspiciously deliberate. I'm not cool with that.

The county will stop any project that doesn't follow code if they find out about it. That includes sheds.

Stopping =/= killing.

In many cases, problems are correctable. Here we have people basically saying construction errors like what the inspector found shouldn't be allowed to be corrected, but instead should be used to justify killing the project.

Other things- namely the setback issue- aren't really correctable. My understanding is that the current laws allow the county to weigh the significance of the issue against the practical ability to remediate, and the county has consistently allowed small setback encroachments made in error to proceed when it would be prohibitively expensive to correct. That wouldn't necessarily be the same in the case of sheds, which would be far cheaper to change. If the county would otherwise allow the 6 inch encroachment in other projects, they should similarly allow it here.

I don't know what typically happens in cases like the garage change, which doesn't look like an error to me. I doubt it is the first time it has come up, though.

Why are setback issues not correctable? Why can’t they just take down the part of the wall that goes over the setback and rebuild on the proper line? If the big issue is the setback, it seems that the easiest thing would be to take down that wall and rebuild it six or so inches over.

If the owner rebuilt the wall behind the setback and then hired a full time GC who would make sure the construction met higher quality standards, it appears he could proceed, no? So why fight for a special permit or variance when just taking down and rebuilding that side would fix the primary problem with the project?

Also, they would have to very strictly adhere to the permit application they filed. The county sees that they have deviated from the previously approved permit, so they might be more likely to inspect more carefully and frequently going forward.

The county doesn't ask for higher standards. The county is asking for *minimum* standards.

Right. But as of now, this project is not meeting those minimum standards, so it needs to meet higher standards than it presently is meeting just to get to the county minimum standards. The present GC hasn’t been able to meet the minimum standards, so hiring a new one may be the way to go.

So the question is, if this homeowner took down the wall that goes over the setback line and rebuilt it behind the line (maybe even a few extra inches behind the line, just to on the safe side), should they be able to proceed with the project as it is presently permitted? Okay, and fix the garage situation also.

Why doesn’t the homeowner just say, okay, I’ll take it down and rebuild according to the rules? Wouldn’t that be better than just waiting and waiting for hearings?

DP and I think this addition is aesthetically hideous. But I live in Arlington so I’m somewhat used to ugly boxes up to the min setback 😂 (I still love my neighborhood though). So I’d say if the homeowner/builder follow the regs and goes by the approved permit then they should be allowed to build it. It’s not against the law to be tacky.

That said I would personally die from embarrassment if my house design choices were so ugly it made the local news.

However, if they are over the setback and fudging the exterior design (including sneakily trying to get out of parking minimums — while also building a place for family members who will add multiple cars), then they should be required to fix this. And I can understand how the BZA and even surrounding neighbors may usually let a few inches go when the scope of the build is generally more modest and in character with the neighborhood. But when you are building to the absolute height max then don’t be greedy and try to get an extra half foot of space between you and your neighbor’s house. It just displays a general disregard for the rules and lack of courtesy for others.

Do you really think they were being "greedy" and tried to get an extra half a foot? I suppose it's possible, but that seems like an awfully expensive bet to make that it wouldn't create problems. More likely, I think the fact that the addition is mostly in the footprint of the original structure made them (falsely) assume that the new structure must be done. A careless mistake, and one they're paying dearly for.

I have a hard time believing the posts here suggesting rebuilds are genuine. Do you really believe that those 6 inches, some of which were likely encroached by the original structure, are worth spending the time and money, and wasting the building materials, to remediate? I could imagine someone making a point on slippery slopes and the need for consistent objectivity dictating that. I don't necessarily agree, but I don't think it would be an unreasonable position to take. But that doesn't seem to be the idea. It seems like it is more motivated by a desire to punish the homeowner here rather than an attempt to genuinely seek a substantive change.

The addition is wider than the original footprint of the home. The first comment in this thread links to a Fox5 DC page, and if you watch the clip and pause at 1:06, you can see the structure outline of the addition on the property plat.

https://www.fox5dc.com/video/1740796

The existing physical structure is colored in red, and the areas outside of the original footprint are colored in yellow. The garage on the Ashley home model is 12 feet wide. It looks like there is an additional 3 feet being added on to the side.

Ashley floor plan:
https://dmv.realestate/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AshleyFP.pdf

Also, even if the original structure violated the setbacks and was “grandfathered” in somehow, that status is then lost once the original structure gets demolished to make way for the new addition.

[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: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.

The more that comes out, the more it is clear the homeowner and builder submitted permits to build up to the max and then thought they could fudge things during construction — just go a little over the set back, get rid of a garage, etc. But they pushed it too far and got on the public and the county’s radar.

To the PP who keeps bleating that zoning laws are the law, so we shouldn’t criticize this build, why are you assuming the current structure actually follows current regs? It seems like it very well may not.

At this point I’m team neighbor for flagging this. Under the circumstances, county review seems entirely appropriate. In fact I imagine many county residents want their tax dollars to be used to actually catch this type of thing so that it won’t become a trend throughout the county.

I've been defending the addition, largely because the comments and complaints have obviously been reacting to the (legal) height and design. I would have a major problem with using other issues to kill this project retroactively if they wouldn't do so for other projects.

But, this garage issue looks suspiciously deliberate. I'm not cool with that.

The county will stop any project that doesn't follow code if they find out about it. That includes sheds.

Stopping =/= killing.

In many cases, problems are correctable. Here we have people basically saying construction errors like what the inspector found shouldn't be allowed to be corrected, but instead should be used to justify killing the project.

Other things- namely the setback issue- aren't really correctable. My understanding is that the current laws allow the county to weigh the significance of the issue against the practical ability to remediate, and the county has consistently allowed small setback encroachments made in error to proceed when it would be prohibitively expensive to correct. That wouldn't necessarily be the same in the case of sheds, which would be far cheaper to change. If the county would otherwise allow the 6 inch encroachment in other projects, they should similarly allow it here.

I don't know what typically happens in cases like the garage change, which doesn't look like an error to me. I doubt it is the first time it has come up, though.

Why are setback issues not correctable? Why can’t they just take down the part of the wall that goes over the setback and rebuild on the proper line? If the big issue is the setback, it seems that the easiest thing would be to take down that wall and rebuild it six or so inches over.

If the owner rebuilt the wall behind the setback and then hired a full time GC who would make sure the construction met higher quality standards, it appears he could proceed, no? So why fight for a special permit or variance when just taking down and rebuilding that side would fix the primary problem with the project?

Also, they would have to very strictly adhere to the permit application they filed. The county sees that they have deviated from the previously approved permit, so they might be more likely to inspect more carefully and frequently going forward.

The county doesn't ask for higher standards. The county is asking for *minimum* standards.

Right. But as of now, this project is not meeting those minimum standards, so it needs to meet higher standards than it presently is meeting just to get to the county minimum standards. The present GC hasn’t been able to meet the minimum standards, so hiring a new one may be the way to go.

So the question is, if this homeowner took down the wall that goes over the setback line and rebuilt it behind the line (maybe even a few extra inches behind the line, just to on the safe side), should they be able to proceed with the project as it is presently permitted? Okay, and fix the garage situation also.

Why doesn’t the homeowner just say, okay, I’ll take it down and rebuild according to the rules? Wouldn’t that be better than just waiting and waiting for hearings?

DP and I think this addition is aesthetically hideous. But I live in Arlington so I’m somewhat used to ugly boxes up to the min setback 😂 (I still love my neighborhood though). So I’d say if the homeowner/builder follow the regs and goes by the approved permit then they should be allowed to build it. It’s not against the law to be tacky.

That said I would personally die from embarrassment if my house design choices were so ugly it made the local news.

However, if they are over the setback and fudging the exterior design (including sneakily trying to get out of parking minimums — while also building a place for family members who will add multiple cars), then they should be required to fix this. And I can understand how the BZA and even surrounding neighbors may usually let a few inches go when the scope of the build is generally more modest and in character with the neighborhood. But when you are building to the absolute height max then don’t be greedy and try to get an extra half foot of space between you and your neighbor’s house. It just displays a general disregard for the rules and lack of courtesy for others.

Do you really think they were being "greedy" and tried to get an extra half a foot? I suppose it's possible, but that seems like an awfully expensive bet to make that it wouldn't create problems. More likely, I think the fact that the addition is mostly in the footprint of the original structure made them (falsely) assume that the new structure must be done. A careless mistake, and one they're paying dearly for.

I have a hard time believing the posts here suggesting rebuilds are genuine. Do you really believe that those 6 inches, some of which were likely encroached by the original structure, are worth spending the time and money, and wasting the building materials, to remediate? I could imagine someone making a point on slippery slopes and the need for consistent objectivity dictating that. I don't necessarily agree, but I don't think it would be an unreasonable position to take. But that doesn't seem to be the idea. It seems like it is more motivated by a desire to punish the homeowner here rather than an attempt to genuinely seek a substantive change.

The addition is wider than the original footprint of the home. The first comment in this thread links to a Fox5 DC page, and if you watch the clip and pause at 1:06, you can see the structure outline of the addition on the property plat.

https://www.fox5dc.com/video/1740796

The existing physical structure is colored in red, and the areas outside of the original footprint are colored in yellow. The garage on the Ashley home model is 12 feet wide. It looks like there is an additional 3 feet being added on to the side.

Ashley floor plan:
https://dmv.realestate/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AshleyFP.pdf

Also, even if the original structure violated the setbacks and was “grandfathered” in somehow, that status is then lost once the original structure gets demolished to make way for the new addition.

The original builder didn't go right up to the setback. In fact, left several feet so that there was never any question. Wonder if there's a reason for that? Mistakes are costly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The more that comes out, the more it is clear the homeowner and builder submitted permits to build up to the max and then thought they could fudge things during construction — just go a little over the set back, get rid of a garage, etc. But they pushed it too far and got on the public and the county’s radar.

To the PP who keeps bleating that zoning laws are the law, so we shouldn’t criticize this build, why are you assuming the current structure actually follows current regs? It seems like it very well may not.

At this point I’m team neighbor for flagging this. Under the circumstances, county review seems entirely appropriate. In fact I imagine many county residents want their tax dollars to be used to actually catch this type of thing so that it won’t become a trend throughout the county.

I've been defending the addition, largely because the comments and complaints have obviously been reacting to the (legal) height and design. I would have a major problem with using other issues to kill this project retroactively if they wouldn't do so for other projects.

But, this garage issue looks suspiciously deliberate. I'm not cool with that.

The county will stop any project that doesn't follow code if they find out about it. That includes sheds.

Stopping =/= killing.

In many cases, problems are correctable. Here we have people basically saying construction errors like what the inspector found shouldn't be allowed to be corrected, but instead should be used to justify killing the project.

Other things- namely the setback issue- aren't really correctable. My understanding is that the current laws allow the county to weigh the significance of the issue against the practical ability to remediate, and the county has consistently allowed small setback encroachments made in error to proceed when it would be prohibitively expensive to correct. That wouldn't necessarily be the same in the case of sheds, which would be far cheaper to change. If the county would otherwise allow the 6 inch encroachment in other projects, they should similarly allow it here.

I don't know what typically happens in cases like the garage change, which doesn't look like an error to me. I doubt it is the first time it has come up, though.

Why are setback issues not correctable? Why can’t they just take down the part of the wall that goes over the setback and rebuild on the proper line? If the big issue is the setback, it seems that the easiest thing would be to take down that wall and rebuild it six or so inches over.

If the owner rebuilt the wall behind the setback and then hired a full time GC who would make sure the construction met higher quality standards, it appears he could proceed, no? So why fight for a special permit or variance when just taking down and rebuilding that side would fix the primary problem with the project?

Also, they would have to very strictly adhere to the permit application they filed. The county sees that they have deviated from the previously approved permit, so they might be more likely to inspect more carefully and frequently going forward.

It's 3 stories and that wall is supporting the loads above, the floors and likely some of the adjacent sides.

They would need to take it all down. Just taking off a wall would make everything structurally unsound.

[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: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.

The more that comes out, the more it is clear the homeowner and builder submitted permits to build up to the max and then thought they could fudge things during construction — just go a little over the set back, get rid of a garage, etc. But they pushed it too far and got on the public and the county’s radar.

To the PP who keeps bleating that zoning laws are the law, so we shouldn’t criticize this build, why are you assuming the current structure actually follows current regs? It seems like it very well may not.

At this point I’m team neighbor for flagging this. Under the circumstances, county review seems entirely appropriate. In fact I imagine many county residents want their tax dollars to be used to actually catch this type of thing so that it won’t become a trend throughout the county.

I've been defending the addition, largely because the comments and complaints have obviously been reacting to the (legal) height and design. I would have a major problem with using other issues to kill this project retroactively if they wouldn't do so for other projects.

But, this garage issue looks suspiciously deliberate. I'm not cool with that.

The county will stop any project that doesn't follow code if they find out about it. That includes sheds.

Stopping =/= killing.

In many cases, problems are correctable. Here we have people basically saying construction errors like what the inspector found shouldn't be allowed to be corrected, but instead should be used to justify killing the project.

Other things- namely the setback issue- aren't really correctable. My understanding is that the current laws allow the county to weigh the significance of the issue against the practical ability to remediate, and the county has consistently allowed small setback encroachments made in error to proceed when it would be prohibitively expensive to correct. That wouldn't necessarily be the same in the case of sheds, which would be far cheaper to change. If the county would otherwise allow the 6 inch encroachment in other projects, they should similarly allow it here.

I don't know what typically happens in cases like the garage change, which doesn't look like an error to me. I doubt it is the first time it has come up, though.

Why are setback issues not correctable? Why can’t they just take down the part of the wall that goes over the setback and rebuild on the proper line? If the big issue is the setback, it seems that the easiest thing would be to take down that wall and rebuild it six or so inches over.

If the owner rebuilt the wall behind the setback and then hired a full time GC who would make sure the construction met higher quality standards, it appears he could proceed, no? So why fight for a special permit or variance when just taking down and rebuilding that side would fix the primary problem with the project?

Also, they would have to very strictly adhere to the permit application they filed. The county sees that they have deviated from the previously approved permit, so they might be more likely to inspect more carefully and frequently going forward.

The county doesn't ask for higher standards. The county is asking for *minimum* standards.

Right. But as of now, this project is not meeting those minimum standards, so it needs to meet higher standards than it presently is meeting just to get to the county minimum standards. The present GC hasn’t been able to meet the minimum standards, so hiring a new one may be the way to go.

So the question is, if this homeowner took down the wall that goes over the setback line and rebuilt it behind the line (maybe even a few extra inches behind the line, just to on the safe side), should they be able to proceed with the project as it is presently permitted? Okay, and fix the garage situation also.

Why doesn’t the homeowner just say, okay, I’ll take it down and rebuild according to the rules? Wouldn’t that be better than just waiting and waiting for hearings?

DP and I think this addition is aesthetically hideous. But I live in Arlington so I’m somewhat used to ugly boxes up to the min setback 😂 (I still love my neighborhood though). So I’d say if the homeowner/builder follow the regs and goes by the approved permit then they should be allowed to build it. It’s not against the law to be tacky.

That said I would personally die from embarrassment if my house design choices were so ugly it made the local news.

However, if they are over the setback and fudging the exterior design (including sneakily trying to get out of parking minimums — while also building a place for family members who will add multiple cars), then they should be required to fix this. And I can understand how the BZA and even surrounding neighbors may usually let a few inches go when the scope of the build is generally more modest and in character with the neighborhood. But when you are building to the absolute height max then don’t be greedy and try to get an extra half foot of space between you and your neighbor’s house. It just displays a general disregard for the rules and lack of courtesy for others.

Do you really think they were being "greedy" and tried to get an extra half a foot? I suppose it's possible, but that seems like an awfully expensive bet to make that it wouldn't create problems. More likely, I think the fact that the addition is mostly in the footprint of the original structure made them (falsely) assume that the new structure must be done. A careless mistake, and one they're paying dearly for.

I have a hard time believing the posts here suggesting rebuilds are genuine. Do you really believe that those 6 inches, some of which were likely encroached by the original structure, are worth spending the time and money, and wasting the building materials, to remediate? I could imagine someone making a point on slippery slopes and the need for consistent objectivity dictating that. I don't necessarily agree, but I don't think it would be an unreasonable position to take. But that doesn't seem to be the idea. It seems like it is more motivated by a desire to punish the homeowner here rather than an attempt to genuinely seek a substantive change.

A garage foundation is not going to support a 3 story apartment complex.

Did they not pour a new foundation?