Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Real Estate
Reply to "Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Another issue beyond the alleged setback violation is that the Permittee has initiated design changes to their construction that does not conform with the scope of the issued permit. As noted in the Stop Work order, “7. Opening layout has changed from approved plans.”, showing there were actual design issues, in addition to the setback and craftmanship not up to code. The Permittee filed an application for a building permit amendment on Dec 11th, seeking changes to exterior windows and interior layout. This request is now under review. The original issued permit called for the presence of a “one car front load garage”, which clearly does not exist (the cut out that is). It is not unreasonable to say after looking at the construction as it stands now, the Permittee never intended to construct a garage for parking – there is a window cut out where a garage door should be. It is possible that in removing the garage entirely from the first permit, it may have drawn additional scrutiny due to questions about parking and public space (though not a deal breaker in and of itself). At least from information available with the permit amendment, the Permittee appears to have hired professional help in the form of an agent from a construction risk management firm. [/quote] Why would garage vs. no garage have mattered in the first permit? Are there parking requirements?[/quote] 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.[/quote] 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.[/quote] 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. [/quote] The county will stop any project that doesn't follow code if they find out about it. That includes sheds. [/quote] 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. [b]Other things- namely the setback issue- aren't really correctable[/b]. 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.[/quote] 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. [/quote] The county doesn't ask for higher standards. The county is asking for *minimum* standards. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics