Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[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.

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

Did they not pour a new foundation?

The pp's observation of the plan from the news clip is the bigger thing- the addition isn't actually in the same footprint at the original structure. Which really makes it surprising to me that they weren't more careful (and worried) from the start.

But I really do wonder if they honestly didn't expect this to be nearly as controversial as it has become. Not everyone values aesthetics that much. This is a very ugly, but also very functional, addition.

[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.

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.

You wouldn't take the wall out. At least, not at first. You'd build a new wall up to the roof, then removing the outer wall from the top. Whether that's even possible would depend on a lot of details, and even if it can be done, it wouldn't be cheap.

[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.

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.

You wouldn't take the wall out. At least, not at first. You'd build a new wall up to the roof, then removing the outer wall from the top. Whether that's even possible would depend on a lot of details, and even if it can be done, it wouldn't be cheap.

Cutting the floor joists shorter when you have a new top plate and bottom plate sandwiching them will be difficult. It's not a flush cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

The pp's observation of the plan from the news clip is the bigger thing- the addition isn't actually in the same footprint at the original structure. Which really makes it surprising to me that they weren't more careful (and worried) from the start.

But I really do wonder if they honestly didn't expect this to be nearly as controversial as it has become. Not everyone values aesthetics that much. This is a very ugly, but also very functional, addition.

To be fair, much of the objection to this addition rests in the fact that it appears to be a three story apartment building with the possibility of housing at least three separate family groups built in a neighborhood consisting of single family houses. The owner says that he intends for the apartments to be lived in by extended family members, but looking down the line, what if the family members choose to live elsewhere? Will there be a temptation to rent out the units to others who are not family members?

And even when everyone is related, three or four different nuclear families living in the same house will produce more traffic, more cars to park, more waste to be picked up. Just think if every house on the block that was originally built for one nuclear family suddenly was enlarged to house three or four families. How much more crowded would a neighborhood become? Especially a neighborhood that wasn’t built with that kind of density in mind.

So, yes, aesthetics form part of the objection to this addition, but people are also very concerned about the idea of putting three or four families into a parcel that was designed for a single family house and about the effects on a neighborhood if more owners decided to do the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

The pp's observation of the plan from the news clip is the bigger thing- the addition isn't actually in the same footprint at the original structure. Which really makes it surprising to me that they weren't more careful (and worried) from the start.

But I really do wonder if they honestly didn't expect this to be nearly as controversial as it has become. Not everyone values aesthetics that much. This is a very ugly, but also very functional, addition.

To be fair, much of the objection to this addition rests in the fact that it appears to be a three story apartment building with the possibility of housing at least three separate family groups built in a neighborhood consisting of single family houses. The owner says that he intends for the apartments to be lived in by extended family members, but looking down the line, what if the family members choose to live elsewhere? Will there be a temptation to rent out the units to others who are not family members?

And even when everyone is related, three or four different nuclear families living in the same house will produce more traffic, more cars to park, more waste to be picked up. Just think if every house on the block that was originally built for one nuclear family suddenly was enlarged to house three or four families. How much more crowded would a neighborhood become? Especially a neighborhood that wasn’t built with that kind of density in mind.

So, yes, aesthetics form part of the objection to this addition, but people are also very concerned about the idea of putting three or four families into a parcel that was designed for a single family house and about the effects on a neighborhood if more owners decided to do the same thing.

It's zoned R-3C, which means multi-family is just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

The pp's observation of the plan from the news clip is the bigger thing- the addition isn't actually in the same footprint at the original structure. Which really makes it surprising to me that they weren't more careful (and worried) from the start.

But I really do wonder if they honestly didn't expect this to be nearly as controversial as it has become. Not everyone values aesthetics that much. This is a very ugly, but also very functional, addition.

To be fair, much of the objection to this addition rests in the fact that it appears to be a three story apartment building with the possibility of housing at least three separate family groups built in a neighborhood consisting of single family houses. The owner says that he intends for the apartments to be lived in by extended family members, but looking down the line, what if the family members choose to live elsewhere? Will there be a temptation to rent out the units to others who are not family members?

And even when everyone is related, three or four different nuclear families living in the same house will produce more traffic, more cars to park, more waste to be picked up. Just think if every house on the block that was originally built for one nuclear family suddenly was enlarged to house three or four families. How much more crowded would a neighborhood become? Especially a neighborhood that wasn’t built with that kind of density in mind.

So, yes, aesthetics form part of the objection to this addition, but people are also very concerned about the idea of putting three or four families into a parcel that was designed for a single family house and about the effects on a neighborhood if more owners decided to do the same thing.

Whether it’s rented to non family has nothing to do with the structure. There are strict rules that must be followed regardless of structure. I have no doubt the neighbors will report any suspected violation to the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

The pp's observation of the plan from the news clip is the bigger thing- the addition isn't actually in the same footprint at the original structure. Which really makes it surprising to me that they weren't more careful (and worried) from the start.

But I really do wonder if they honestly didn't expect this to be nearly as controversial as it has become. Not everyone values aesthetics that much. This is a very ugly, but also very functional, addition.

To be fair, much of the objection to this addition rests in the fact that it appears to be a three story apartment building with the possibility of housing at least three separate family groups built in a neighborhood consisting of single family houses. The owner says that he intends for the apartments to be lived in by extended family members, but looking down the line, what if the family members choose to live elsewhere? Will there be a temptation to rent out the units to others who are not family members?

And even when everyone is related, three or four different nuclear families living in the same house will produce more traffic, more cars to park, more waste to be picked up. Just think if every house on the block that was originally built for one nuclear family suddenly was enlarged to house three or four families. How much more crowded would a neighborhood become? Especially a neighborhood that wasn’t built with that kind of density in mind.

So, yes, aesthetics form part of the objection to this addition, but people are also very concerned about the idea of putting three or four families into a parcel that was designed for a single family house and about the effects on a neighborhood if more owners decided to do the same thing.

It's zoned R-3C, which means multi-family is just fine.

Maybe so, but that particular development was built with single family homes, I believe. So all the infrastructure in that neighborhood was built with single family houses in mind, not multi family housing. More people living in a neighborhood will make a neighborhood feel more crowded than fewer people living there. That’s just the math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

The owner/son/GC admitted in an interview I saw that the “contractor” used the fence to measure for the set back assuming it was the property line but in fact it wasn’t identical to the property. Hence why the addition is in violation of the set back requirement and is too close.

If the fence has been used as the de facto property line for many years, it seems pretty hard to credibly claim the neighbors are harmed by the encroachment.

Um, no, that’s not the way it works. If you are the owner/contractor, you really need to get good advice from someone who knows what they’re talking about. The fence does not determine the property line. The property lines exist whether or not there is a fence on a property. Only a professional survey can show where the real property lines are.

Just out of curiosity, who put the fence up? Was there a survey with stakes marking the property corners? How do we know the fence is actually on the property boundaries?

It looks like the fence was put up by the neighbors.

It doesn’t matter. A professional survey will show the property lines. Posters need to go to law school apparently to understand real property, zoning and land use law. OMG

It doesn't change the property line, but it does hurt the credibility of a claim that the neighbors will be affected by the 6 inches.

No, it doesn’t affect the credibility of the “claim” at all. Because all that matters is where the actual property line is and whether or not the extension of the house is over the setback line. The county zoning laws are what matter here.

The point of the above post is that a fence is not a property line. Only a survey can show where the property lines are.

It does, because that's part of what's considered for granting a special permit.

Is and expert you are paying for advice telling you this?

Are you having a stroke, Courtney?

Maybe the homeowner can try to file for adverse possession to get that land that they've been taking care of for years.

Are you the owner of the house where the addition is being built? This is a very odd answer.

Still wondering whether the owner is getting real advice or just reading the zoning code.

No, I'm not the owner. And I agree that the owner needs to involve a lawyer here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have nothing to do with this project, but accusing the homeowner of "riling people up" is absolutely bananas. These folks have taken on a project that is going to deny her home sunlight basically in perpetuity, not to mention being an aesthetic nightmare.

I don't care what her motivations are, she has my full support whether it's over a technicality or the actual structural issues that have been uncovered. Structural issues, by the way, that make this addition a danger to her home and to the broader neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

The pp's observation of the plan from the news clip is the bigger thing- the addition isn't actually in the same footprint at the original structure. Which really makes it surprising to me that they weren't more careful (and worried) from the start.

But I really do wonder if they honestly didn't expect this to be nearly as controversial as it has become. Not everyone values aesthetics that much. This is a very ugly, but also very functional, addition.

To be fair, much of the objection to this addition rests in the fact that it appears to be a three story apartment building with the possibility of housing at least three separate family groups built in a neighborhood consisting of single family houses. The owner says that he intends for the apartments to be lived in by extended family members, but looking down the line, what if the family members choose to live elsewhere? Will there be a temptation to rent out the units to others who are not family members?

And even when everyone is related, three or four different nuclear families living in the same house will produce more traffic, more cars to park, more waste to be picked up. Just think if every house on the block that was originally built for one nuclear family suddenly was enlarged to house three or four families. How much more crowded would a neighborhood become? Especially a neighborhood that wasn’t built with that kind of density in mind.

So, yes, aesthetics form part of the objection to this addition, but people are also very concerned about the idea of putting three or four families into a parcel that was designed for a single family house and about the effects on a neighborhood if more owners decided to do the same thing.

It's zoned R-3C, which means multi-family is just fine.

Maybe so, but that particular development was built with single family homes, I believe. So all the infrastructure in that neighborhood was built with single family houses in mind, not multi family housing. More people living in a neighborhood will make a neighborhood feel more crowded than fewer people living there. That’s just the math.

Zoning doesn't care about your feelings or what was built originally.

[Anonymous]

The table below is from the Fairfax County zoning ordinance. Here’s the link to the site to see it better:

https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc-viewer.aspx?secid=2489#secid-2489

And this table is about halfway down. It looks like it says that a building in the R3 zone with a height of 30 feet needs a side setback of at least 18 feet, not the 8 feet that’s been discussed here. Can someone explain this? Thank you.

Table 2102.7a: R-3 Setback Relative to Height
Other principal uses Illustration of setback relative to height
Building height, maximum (feet) [1] Front setback, minimum (feet) Side setback, minimum (feet) Rear setback, minimum (feet)
15 30 10 25
20 30 11 25
25 30 15 25
30 30 18 25
35 30 22 25
40 30 25 25
45 34 29 29
50 39 32 32
55 43 36 36
60 47 39 39
Notes:
[1]
Maximum height of the portion of the building at the specified minimum setback

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

The owner/son/GC admitted in an interview I saw that the “contractor” used the fence to measure for the set back assuming it was the property line but in fact it wasn’t identical to the property. Hence why the addition is in violation of the set back requirement and is too close.

If the fence has been used as the de facto property line for many years, it seems pretty hard to credibly claim the neighbors are harmed by the encroachment.

Um, no, that’s not the way it works. If you are the owner/contractor, you really need to get good advice from someone who knows what they’re talking about. The fence does not determine the property line. The property lines exist whether or not there is a fence on a property. Only a professional survey can show where the real property lines are.

Just out of curiosity, who put the fence up? Was there a survey with stakes marking the property corners? How do we know the fence is actually on the property boundaries?

It looks like the fence was put up by the neighbors.

It doesn’t matter. A professional survey will show the property lines. Posters need to go to law school apparently to understand real property, zoning and land use law. OMG

It doesn't change the property line, but it does hurt the credibility of a claim that the neighbors will be affected by the 6 inches.

No, it doesn’t affect the credibility of the “claim” at all. Because all that matters is where the actual property line is and whether or not the extension of the house is over the setback line. The county zoning laws are what matter here.

The point of the above post is that a fence is not a property line. Only a survey can show where the property lines are.

It does, because that's part of what's considered for granting a special permit.

Is and expert you are paying for advice telling you this?

Are you having a stroke, Courtney?

Maybe the homeowner can try to file for adverse possession to get that land that they've been taking care of for years.

Are you the owner of the house where the addition is being built? This is a very odd answer.

Still wondering whether the owner is getting real advice or just reading the zoning code.

No, I'm not the owner. And I agree that the owner needs to involve a lawyer here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have nothing to do with this project, but accusing the homeowner of "riling people up" is absolutely bananas. These folks have taken on a project that is going to deny her home sunlight basically in perpetuity, not to mention being an aesthetic nightmare.

I don't care what her motivations are, she has my full support whether it's over a technicality or the actual structural issues that have been uncovered. Structural issues, by the way, that make this addition a danger to her home and to the broader neighborhood.

Not to mention the loss of property value for her house regardless of what the poster who loves the addition keeps saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

The owner/son/GC admitted in an interview I saw that the “contractor” used the fence to measure for the set back assuming it was the property line but in fact it wasn’t identical to the property. Hence why the addition is in violation of the set back requirement and is too close.

If the fence has been used as the de facto property line for many years, it seems pretty hard to credibly claim the neighbors are harmed by the encroachment.

Um, no, that’s not the way it works. If you are the owner/contractor, you really need to get good advice from someone who knows what they’re talking about. The fence does not determine the property line. The property lines exist whether or not there is a fence on a property. Only a professional survey can show where the real property lines are.

Just out of curiosity, who put the fence up? Was there a survey with stakes marking the property corners? How do we know the fence is actually on the property boundaries?

It looks like the fence was put up by the neighbors.

It doesn’t matter. A professional survey will show the property lines. Posters need to go to law school apparently to understand real property, zoning and land use law. OMG

It doesn't change the property line, but it does hurt the credibility of a claim that the neighbors will be affected by the 6 inches.

No, it doesn’t affect the credibility of the “claim” at all. Because all that matters is where the actual property line is and whether or not the extension of the house is over the setback line. The county zoning laws are what matter here.

The point of the above post is that a fence is not a property line. Only a survey can show where the property lines are.

It does, because that's part of what's considered for granting a special permit.

Is and expert you are paying for advice telling you this?

Are you having a stroke, Courtney?

Maybe the homeowner can try to file for adverse possession to get that land that they've been taking care of for years.

Are you the owner of the house where the addition is being built? This is a very odd answer.

Still wondering whether the owner is getting real advice or just reading the zoning code.

No, I'm not the owner. And I agree that the owner needs to involve a lawyer here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have nothing to do with this project, but accusing the homeowner of "riling people up" is absolutely bananas. These folks have taken on a project that is going to deny her home sunlight basically in perpetuity, not to mention being an aesthetic nightmare.

I don't care what her motivations are, she has my full support whether it's over a technicality or the actual structural issues that have been uncovered. Structural issues, by the way, that make this addition a danger to her home and to the broader neighborhood.

You have no property right to sunlight or views in the United States. It’s on her if she incorrectly assumed she owned those things.

[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.

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.

You wouldn't take the wall out. At least, not at first. You'd build a new wall up to the roof, then removing the outer wall from the top. Whether that's even possible would depend on a lot of details, and even if it can be done, it wouldn't be cheap.

Cutting the floor joists shorter when you have a new top plate and bottom plate sandwiching them will be difficult. It's not a flush cut.

You can do a lot of things when you need to... but that doesn't mean it would be cheap or a good idea. Nor would it necessarily be structurally sound.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

The owner/son/GC admitted in an interview I saw that the “contractor” used the fence to measure for the set back assuming it was the property line but in fact it wasn’t identical to the property. Hence why the addition is in violation of the set back requirement and is too close.

If the fence has been used as the de facto property line for many years, it seems pretty hard to credibly claim the neighbors are harmed by the encroachment.

Um, no, that’s not the way it works. If you are the owner/contractor, you really need to get good advice from someone who knows what they’re talking about. The fence does not determine the property line. The property lines exist whether or not there is a fence on a property. Only a professional survey can show where the real property lines are.

Just out of curiosity, who put the fence up? Was there a survey with stakes marking the property corners? How do we know the fence is actually on the property boundaries?

It looks like the fence was put up by the neighbors.

It doesn’t matter. A professional survey will show the property lines. Posters need to go to law school apparently to understand real property, zoning and land use law. OMG

It doesn't change the property line, but it does hurt the credibility of a claim that the neighbors will be affected by the 6 inches.

No, it doesn’t affect the credibility of the “claim” at all. Because all that matters is where the actual property line is and whether or not the extension of the house is over the setback line. The county zoning laws are what matter here.

The point of the above post is that a fence is not a property line. Only a survey can show where the property lines are.

It does, because that's part of what's considered for granting a special permit.

Is and expert you are paying for advice telling you this?

Are you having a stroke, Courtney?

Maybe the homeowner can try to file for adverse possession to get that land that they've been taking care of for years.

Are you the owner of the house where the addition is being built? This is a very odd answer.

Still wondering whether the owner is getting real advice or just reading the zoning code.

No, I'm not the owner. And I agree that the owner needs to involve a lawyer here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've read, posted, never have been in that area and don't know anyone in the area. Issues: new foundation poured for a structure that would be over the setback line, wind bracing is broad and encompasses structural, mystery garage. Another is FFE-footings extended in previously disturbed soil.
So if you live on the other side of this 3 story addition footings and structural elements must be perfect. Flunked wind bracing.

HOA type stuff on height and aesthetics pales next to FFE footers and slop construction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

The pp's observation of the plan from the news clip is the bigger thing- the addition isn't actually in the same footprint at the original structure. Which really makes it surprising to me that they weren't more careful (and worried) from the start.

But I really do wonder if they honestly didn't expect this to be nearly as controversial as it has become. Not everyone values aesthetics that much. This is a very ugly, but also very functional, addition.

To be fair, much of the objection to this addition rests in the fact that it appears to be a three story apartment building with the possibility of housing at least three separate family groups built in a neighborhood consisting of single family houses. The owner says that he intends for the apartments to be lived in by extended family members, but looking down the line, what if the family members choose to live elsewhere? Will there be a temptation to rent out the units to others who are not family members?

And even when everyone is related, three or four different nuclear families living in the same house will produce more traffic, more cars to park, more waste to be picked up. Just think if every house on the block that was originally built for one nuclear family suddenly was enlarged to house three or four families. How much more crowded would a neighborhood become? Especially a neighborhood that wasn’t built with that kind of density in mind.

So, yes, aesthetics form part of the objection to this addition, but people are also very concerned about the idea of putting three or four families into a parcel that was designed for a single family house and about the effects on a neighborhood if more owners decided to do the same thing.

Someone here keeps saying that, but it isn't an apartment. They aren't building separate units with separate kitchens and living spaces.

Could multiple unrelated people later live there? Sure, but that's no different than other houses.

With the addition, the house certainly becomes big, but not outrageously so. I don't understand the claimed "apartment" concern at all. If someone really wanted to build something that could illicitly function similarly to an apartment building, it wouldn't look like this. This project is clearly intended as a moderately cheap band-aid to an extended family's living situation.