Anonymous wrote:
If he was gaming the rules (and the garage and then no garage is sus), then he gambled and maybe he loses. Gambling with a project like this is not a good idea.

Right?!! The setback issue looks like a mistake, but the garage looks intentional. That's nuts for a project like this.

Anonymous wrote:Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

You seem to be making an assumption that the county won't adjust the setback. There's a good chance they will. The garage area probably could be swapped back if absolutely necessary. The foundation should already be strong enough. Even if they were start over with a narrower rebuild, the neighbor might fight them anyway, so they can't assume no legal battles either way.

If he was gaming the rules (and the garage and then no garage is sus), then he gambled and maybe he loses. Gambling with a project like this is not a good idea.

Anonymous wrote:Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

They tore down part of the house to start building this. So no, they can't just "go back" at this point.

That's not to say they couldn't, in theory, rebuild something different. But they're far enough along that would be extremely expensive. They're going to want to keep as much of this new structure as they possibly can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did homeowner just open a new can of worms with removing the garage?

It appears that Fairfax County zoning ordinances requires off-street minimums for vehicle parking.

The owner is required to have 2 off-street parking spaces in a single family detached dwelling. Without a garage, there’s not 2 parking spaces on that driveway without blocking the sidewalk.

Yes, he certainly did.

I am sure it was an honest mistake. The garage just happens to be 0" wide. Guy needs a new tape measure for Christmas.

Anonymous wrote:Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

Presumably a professional general contractor can do that.

Is there a financial point at which it makes sense to just take down what’s been built so far and return the lot to the condition it was before construction began?

It just seems that this poor guy didn’t know what he was doing and it’s just costing more and more money. At some point, it would seem that good money is being thrown after bad and it would be a wiser use of limited funds to just stop the loss.

Is there a way for someone to calculate whether it is less expensive to just stop? Possibly an online calculator for a situation like this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did homeowner just open a new can of worms with removing the garage?

It appears that Fairfax County zoning ordinances requires off-street minimums for vehicle parking.

The owner is required to have 2 off-street parking spaces in a single family detached dwelling. Without a garage, there’s not 2 parking spaces on that driveway without blocking the sidewalk.

Couldn’t they just widen the driveway? Most houses in that neighborhood have wide enough driveways for two cars.

They would need to apply for a permit to do so and get it approved. As part of this process though, they would need to submit a formal Site Plan, which they did not do in the original building permit. They got around this by claiming the ground disruption was under 2,500 sq. feet. These are self reported figures so they can be difficult to enforce, but I struggle to see how the disturbance was under 2,500 when you account for access paths, buffer zones, equipment staging areas in both the front and rear of the home (one can see there is significant land disturbance in the front of the home in street view images).

The formal site plan required to be submitted would contains detailed engineering drawings of the proposed uses and improvements required in the development of a given lot and is prepared and approved in accordance. Perhaps if they had undertaken the site plan and the requisite surveys, they may not be in the situation they are in, as they could have adjusted their plans accordingly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did homeowner just open a new can of worms with removing the garage?

It appears that Fairfax County zoning ordinances requires off-street minimums for vehicle parking.

The owner is required to have 2 off-street parking spaces in a single family detached dwelling. Without a garage, there’s not 2 parking spaces on that driveway without blocking the sidewalk.

Couldn’t they just widen the driveway? Most houses in that neighborhood have wide enough driveways for two cars.

Could but they are building the addition onto much of the old driveway and garage. There really is only like 1 car length from the sidewalk/apron to the addition. For esthetics and practicality, the driveway apron need to be need to be widened too then.

Other homes that have widened the driveway have more length for reversing/merging into the original driveway and therefore were able to keep the single apron.

Anonymous wrote:Did homeowner just open a new can of worms with removing the garage?

It appears that Fairfax County zoning ordinances requires off-street minimums for vehicle parking.

The owner is required to have 2 off-street parking spaces in a single family detached dwelling. Without a garage, there’s not 2 parking spaces on that driveway without blocking the sidewalk.

Couldn’t they just widen the driveway? Most houses in that neighborhood have wide enough driveways for two cars.

Anonymous wrote:Did homeowner just open a new can of worms with removing the garage?

It appears that Fairfax County zoning ordinances requires off-street minimums for vehicle parking.

The owner is required to have 2 off-street parking spaces in a single family detached dwelling. Without a garage, there’s not 2 parking spaces on that driveway without blocking the sidewalk.

Yes, he certainly did.

Did homeowner just open a new can of worms with removing the garage?

It appears that Fairfax County zoning ordinances requires off-street minimums for vehicle parking.

The owner is required to have 2 off-street parking spaces in a single family detached dwelling. Without a garage, there’s not 2 parking spaces on that driveway without blocking the sidewalk.

First of all you should never build up to property line as you have no cushion. Even a one inch mistake puts you over property line.

My old house I did almost do an addition. I had strict set back from street, set backs on both sides, set back in rear, plus only a certain percentage of property could be built on.

In the end I got plans to go out over my existing flat roof garage, existing small inheated porch and my 10-12 one story existing kitchen pop out. It would give me 500 foot more sf without impacting foot print. and way less making neighbors upset and no chance of footprint issues. And I was not making a third floor. I was just building on parts of my first floor that did not have a floor on top.

What he is doing is creating a monster home that makes no sense. Plus creating multi family in a single family zone without proper parking.

And it is a stupid financial move. My greek friends my old town did this nonsense. The blow out for their parents already in their 70s took way way longer than expected. Annoyed the parents already retired, raised their property taxes, raised their home insurance, went over budget. When done the parents said it would have just made more sense they bought a two bedroom coop in the building a 1/4 mile their home they could live in. Made no sense to do it. That was 2010.

Now that family this year is an empty nestor, last kid at college and parents dead and they have a house too big with high property taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public records show that the application filed on 12/11 to amend the plan include the name of a “risk management solutions” company.

What does this kind of a company do? Why does a homeowner hire someone to manage risk for a permit application like this?

I see online where a building permit amendment was filed on Dec 11. I don’t see where there is a risk management company listed.

The amendment still answers the question of “is the property owner acting as the contractor for the project?” as yes. The question about do you have a Fairfax county Business, Professional, and Occupational license (BPOL) is marked no. A temporary BPOL is marked no. Amendment does indicate if a BPOL exemption would be appropriate and that question is marked yes. Agent to certify exemption is Norman Soto Perez.

Description of changes in amendment are for changes to exterior windows and interior layout on 1st floor, 2nd floor, and 3rd floor.

Interesting that the owner is more interested in proceeding with changes the layout versus resolving the setback issue.

The stop work order had a host of different issues that need to be resolved through different means.

The change in layout is likely due to the addition not containing a one car garage as was indicated in their plans. It is clear there was never any intent to have the garage. The street view images show a giant 3 panel window going in the front where the garage doors should have been. It has also been noted that the home had an unpermitted conversion of the old one car garage to living space done.

The setback and the garage are the only major items, no? Everything else were just things the builder can go in and fix once the stop work order is lifted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public records show that the application filed on 12/11 to amend the plan include the name of a “risk management solutions” company.

What does this kind of a company do? Why does a homeowner hire someone to manage risk for a permit application like this?

I see online where a building permit amendment was filed on Dec 11. I don’t see where there is a risk management company listed.

The amendment still answers the question of “is the property owner acting as the contractor for the project?” as yes. The question about do you have a Fairfax county Business, Professional, and Occupational license (BPOL) is marked no. A temporary BPOL is marked no. Amendment does indicate if a BPOL exemption would be appropriate and that question is marked yes. Agent to certify exemption is Norman Soto Perez.

Description of changes in amendment are for changes to exterior windows and interior layout on 1st floor, 2nd floor, and 3rd floor.

Interesting that the owner is more interested in proceeding with changes the layout versus resolving the setback issue.

The stop work order had a host of different issues that need to be resolved through different means.

The change in layout is likely due to the addition not containing a one car garage as was indicated in their plans. It is clear there was never any intent to have the garage. The street view images show a giant 3 panel window going in the front where the garage doors should have been. It has also been noted that the home had an unpermitted conversion of the old one car garage to living space done.