Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

He didn't build the approved plans. The approved plans show a 8.5' setback from the property line.

Well, we'll to agree to disagree on that. I would say they followed the plan, but the plan had an error.

Regardless, I'd really love to see you try to set footers for a deck or addition just taking measurements from the property line, rather than the house.

Different Poster than the person whom you are replying to, but with regards to your last statement, if you are approaching the limits of setback, you absolutely should be taking a measurement from the property line to the area of construction (in your case a footer). This is exactly what is done in a proper pre-construction stakeout. You also reconfirm once you do the initial work to make sure it conforms so you are not fixing later in the process after more time and money has been spent. It is even more important for the owner of the addition to have done so, seeing they are acting as GC and are thus financially liable. These situations are why you hire a bonded and licensed GC. The owners would have recourse against a GC had they chose to do it themselves.

I know when there was permitted exterior hardscaping work done at my house that came to approaching setback limits, there was measurement from the property line to the edge of construction, as well as measurements from the house. The surveying costs were not insignificant, and multiple surveys done between initial, stakeouts, confirmatory, but were an important part of the process. It is incumbent to verify everything, you can't simple rely on some plans that had a significant error in it such as this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

c) The proposed use, including its design and operational characteristics, must not adversely affect the use or future development of neighboring properties and must be in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. The location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls, and fences, as well as the nature and extent of screening, buffering and landscaping cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings.

^This is a big one. "cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings"

The neighbor's new view (lack of) is definitely hindering use. The shade is hindering her use for plantings and/or a garden. Her privacy is being hindered. These things impair the value of her home.

Good luck with adding solar to her home.

So, I think one of the reasons you have a very different opinion on the likelihood of a special permit being granted is that somewhere along the line you got the mistaken belief that the impacts of the non-offending aspects of a project are relevant to the decision on granting the special permit. They're not.

DP, but the homeowner will need to address the following:

The proposed use, including its design and operational characteristics, must not adversely affect the use or future development of neighboring properties and must be in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. The location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls, and fences, as well as the nature and extent of screening, buffering and landscaping cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings.

The next door neighbor could certainly argue the addition does affect the use of their property -eg the solar panels they have already invested in and were permitted for. I believe those solar panels are over their garage which is directly adjacent to the addition if I remember correctly from the images.

If the homeowner had built with the proper setback, then agreed, there is nothing the neighbor could do, offending or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

He didn't build the approved plans. The approved plans show a 8.5' setback from the property line.

Well, we'll to agree to disagree on that. I would say they followed the plan, but the plan had an error.

Regardless, I'd really love to see you try to set footers for a deck or addition just taking measurements from the property line, rather than the house.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

c) The proposed use, including its design and operational characteristics, must not adversely affect the use or future development of neighboring properties and must be in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. The location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls, and fences, as well as the nature and extent of screening, buffering and landscaping cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings.

^This is a big one. "cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings"

The neighbor's new view (lack of) is definitely hindering use. The shade is hindering her use for plantings and/or a garden. Her privacy is being hindered. These things impair the value of her home.

Good luck with adding solar to her home.

So, I think one of the reasons you have a very different opinion on the likelihood of a special permit being granted is that somewhere along the line you got the mistaken belief that the impacts of the non-offending aspects of a project are relevant to the decision on granting the special permit. They're not.

Anonymous wrote:

c) The proposed use, including its design and operational characteristics, must not adversely affect the use or future development of neighboring properties and must be in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. The location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls, and fences, as well as the nature and extent of screening, buffering and landscaping cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings.

^This is a big one. "cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings"

The neighbor's new view (lack of) is definitely hindering use. The shade is hindering her use for plantings and/or a garden. Her privacy is being hindered. These things impair the value of her home.

You think being 6 inches too close to the property line has a non-trivial impact on the neighbor's hypothetical garden? Or somehow affects privacy?

No, it doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

c) The proposed use, including its design and operational characteristics, must not adversely affect the use or future development of neighboring properties and must be in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. The location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls, and fences, as well as the nature and extent of screening, buffering and landscaping cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings.

^This is a big one. "cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings"

The neighbor's new view (lack of) is definitely hindering use. The shade is hindering her use for plantings and/or a garden. Her privacy is being hindered. These things impair the value of her home.

Good luck with adding solar to her home.

Neighbor already has solar installed in 2019. The addition homeowner installed solar in 2023. Mike Nguyen (who was not the property owner) is listed as pulling the solar permit in 2023.

Anonymous wrote:

c) The proposed use, including its design and operational characteristics, must not adversely affect the use or future development of neighboring properties and must be in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. The location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls, and fences, as well as the nature and extent of screening, buffering and landscaping cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings.

^This is a big one. "cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings"

The neighbor's new view (lack of) is definitely hindering use. The shade is hindering her use for plantings and/or a garden. Her privacy is being hindered. These things impair the value of her home.

Good luck with adding solar to her home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

He didn't build the approved plans. The approved plans show a 8.5' setback from the property line.

c) The proposed use, including its design and operational characteristics, must not adversely affect the use or future development of neighboring properties and must be in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. The location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls, and fences, as well as the nature and extent of screening, buffering and landscaping cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings.

^This is a big one. "cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings"

The neighbor's new view (lack of) is definitely hindering use. The shade is hindering her use for plantings and/or a garden. Her privacy is being hindered. These things impair the value of her home.

Let’s assume the homeowner decides to seek relief through the Special Permit process. I am curious how they craft their Statement of Justification with regards to some of the critical points the BZA is to consider

A Statement of Justification should be provided for all special permit uses which must satisfy the following general standards pursuant to subsection 4102.1.F(2) of the Zoning Ordinance in order for the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve the application.

b) The proposed use must be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning district where it is to be located.

In its current form (setback violation notwithstanding), the project likely does not meet the zoning standards on the basis of off-street parking, given the homeowner deviated from the permitted plans by eliminating the one car garage. And while it is separate from the application, as there is public debate, it will also come up that the homeowner had an unpermitted garage conversion, as well as an unpermitted extension of the driveway as one can see in historical imagery. People on the BZA are human and may be influenced in some way whether they should or should not be.

Is the homeowner in a Catch-22 here in the sense that they would need to change the existing construction but are unable to do so because they need relief of the setback issue, which itself is complicated by the fact that they need to have the project in compliance in all other forms except for the setback, but cannot do construction on the property until the setback issue is solved?

c) The proposed use, including its design and operational characteristics, must not adversely affect the use or future development of neighboring properties and must be in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. The location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls, and fences, as well as the nature and extent of screening, buffering and landscaping cannot hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use, or impair the value of, adjacent or nearby land or buildings.

This was not considered in the original permit because everything was being done “by right”. That standard changes now due to seeking a special permit and the public now having the ability to weigh in and have the impact upon them considered. The neighbor can show impairment from the loss of power production from their solar panels, and perhaps any landscaping impacts due to the loss of direct sunlight due to the size and position of the addition. The size of the addition now matters insofar as it does have impacts on neighbors.

e) Adequate utility, drainage, and other necessary facilities to serve the proposed use must be provided.

As the homeowner self certified the construction addition would result in ground disturbance of under 2,500sq feet, they did not need to undertake any sort of drainage or stormwater analysis. Now that they find themselves here, they will need to. What if they find that that there are potential issues with the design as it relates to drainage that now need to be mitigated, if they could be even mitigated at all? Suppose they perform a study that is favorable, but the next-door neighbor commissions one that raises issues, how should the applicant seek to dismiss concerns over conflicting studies? The board will have to account for new information like this. Suppose there are facts about the design that should require additional stormwater work, how do they manage those in the sense of permits or perhaps needing to seek even more relief because things like extended gutters may cause further encroachment into the setback area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

Permit expiration doesn't have the impact you think it has. Vested rights still apply associated with the initial approval. He's not going to want to lose those given some people already want to change the ordinances.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

I wouldn't say I'm confident, but I think there's a good chance. They can't deny a modification based on unpopularity. The public comments could try to claim an impact, but we all know the concern is based on the height, not the 6 inches. The height isn't the relevant issue.

He can't build to the approved plans without a setback modification. There isn't enough space. Any change at this point is going to require a redesign, new or modified permits, demolition, and significant materials and labor costs. The neighbors would also likely attempt legal action to block a rebuild, perhaps hoping that they could delay things long enough to change zoning ordinances.

He's already in a terrible spot, but by far his best chance at avoiding catastrophic financial loss and lengthy delays is to push for a setback modification. Worst case, he loses and that puts him in the same place you him to go now. He'd be out his legal-related expenses, but despite them being substantial, they are still in the weeds compared to the costs involved in starting over.

Besides the garage and setback, all of the other issues were either related to incomplete work or fairly easily repairable construction errors.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What makes you so confident the county is going to adjust the setback?

I don’t think the county will approve this one, too much opposition to the project. With a variance or special permit allowing community feedback in the process, they will use that to deny an exception. Other projects requesting a variance do not receive so much public opposition. Fairfax county doesn’t want to be in the national news again and they’re quickly rewriting building regulations to prevent this from occurring in the future.

The homeowner’s best shot is to resolve the setback issue and build exactly to the rest of the approved plans. Every time he’s trying to change something it, it leads to new issues (eg off street parking). He’s focused on layout changes first as I guess that will help resolve 2 issues in the stop work list: 1) header not installed at first floor opening and 2) opening layout has changed from approved plans.

PS- the permit expires if work is suspended for six months. We’re past month 2 with a stop work order and nothing on the setback issue appears to be filed yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right - especially since the windows for where the garage was going to go have been sitting in front of that hole for months.

Maybe they ordered a garage door but were sent a window, and then they just went with it. /s

I really don't understand that one. They didn't think an inspector would notice? I guess they thought it shouldn't matter.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right - especially since the windows for where the garage was going to go have been sitting in front of that hole for months.