These are horrible neighbors dont defend them.

For instance my neighbor is Jewish, I am Catholic. I dont mow lawn, do loud contructuon when kids were younger have them making loud noises in yard during any Passover, Yom Kippur and Easter Sunday and Xmas he does same. When they do home construction they he tell me and we do the same. I dont park in front of their house and they dont park in front of my house unless a big party or something.

Guess what legally we dont have to do this. It is called being a good neighbor which theses people are not.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


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 been following this thread. I do not know Courtney or anyone in her neighborhood. In fact I live miles away, but am in Fairfax County. I think Courtney has a right to free speech and a right to use the internet and media just like anyone else. I don't think she has control over her neighbor at all. Fairfax County will be the final arbiter in all of this (and it has turned out that there is a setback issue which she may or may not have known or suspected).

I think that almost anyone who has seen a picture of this addition would be concerned and have sympathy for Courtney. Whether you think it's crappy that she has the right to complain is your problem. She has that right. She was not wrong to ask the county to review the construction because, quite frankly, the county's reputation in regard to zoning is on the line here.

Your post just emphasizes the problem. The decisions should be made based on what the laws actually say, not what you wish they said. It's pretty clear that this has always been about about the design, not perceptions of construction quality or the setback. But as much as you might not like the design according to your personal aesthetic, it follows the laws of the county. Given the complexity of laws and regulations in modern society, do you really think it's a good idea for the government to use unrelated technicalities to punish legal activities in response to public political pressure? I would hope you'd see the tremendous danger in that.

It's clear in the county report that the construction is of poor quality, failing to follow approved construction methods. But hey, it's standing, let's give the builder a pass because it's just a technicality.

When you issue a stop work order in the middle of framing, you're going to find "violations."

Come on, we all know that's not the issue here.

Foundation anchors missing in various locations throughout.
Nail pattern incorrect at majority of braced wall panels throughout.

These are not technicalities. It's 30' tall. The braced wall panels are not optional.

And those could be addressed if not for the stop work order. It's obvious they weren't done with the sheeting when the stop work order was issued.

The stop work order does not mean the owner cannot address the deficiencies.
In fact that is exactly the whole point of a stop work order.

The process is as follows:
1. SWO is posted and violations are listed
2. Owner/contractor contacts Land Development Services (LDS) or the assigned inspector
3. A correction plan is reviewed
4. Inspector authorizes specific corrective work
5. Inspection occurs
6. SWO is lifted once compliance is achieved

It sounds like they can't perform the work until the inspector authorizes it. No?

They need to fix the issues. That is the point. Work needs to be done on remediating the issues and then they can continue with the remainder of the project.

The county website suggests they can't do anything except for temporary weatherproofing without explicit county approval, and likely lifting the stop work order. Am I misinterpreting that?

I am not a building official, but I don't think they can as the Stop order also references the setback issue that needs to be resolved. If they are able to get a special permit from the BZA, this still does not leave them fully in the clear as someone may (Nextdoor neighbor for instance) file an appeal to the Circuit Court within 30 days of the Special Permit approval. Assuming the plaintiff has valid standing, which it is reasonable to assume that the nextdoor neighbor here does (it is not a high bar for them to show they are an aggrieved party), the courts now have control over the process, and they follow an entirely different standard than the BZA does. Precedent court cases and judgement standards have been referenced further back in this thread.

The courts take a much stricter view towards approvals of special permits and variances, and has many times invalidated variance orders from county and city BZAs. In fact, the standard for the courts is to invalidate them save for very specific circumstances, of which most likely do not apply here (nothing inherently deficient with the property itself; issues are direct caused by the fault of the owner, etc.).

The nextdoor neighbor is in the drivers seat here and has the power to stop this situation whether any of us like it or not. It does not matter that they are opposed to the design, which does fall in the scope of what is allowed at this moment in Fairfax Count. One being opposed to the design does not invalidate any future issue that party would have relating to technical violations. This is shown to be true by the fact that an appeals process with the courts exists, and that the court's standards of judgment do not consider ulterior motives of the aggrieved party (fair or unfair) for things such as aesthetic opposition - it is concerned with the technicalities, in this case that technicality being a setback violation presumbably.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


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 been following this thread. I do not know Courtney or anyone in her neighborhood. In fact I live miles away, but am in Fairfax County. I think Courtney has a right to free speech and a right to use the internet and media just like anyone else. I don't think she has control over her neighbor at all. Fairfax County will be the final arbiter in all of this (and it has turned out that there is a setback issue which she may or may not have known or suspected).

I think that almost anyone who has seen a picture of this addition would be concerned and have sympathy for Courtney. Whether you think it's crappy that she has the right to complain is your problem. She has that right. She was not wrong to ask the county to review the construction because, quite frankly, the county's reputation in regard to zoning is on the line here.

Your post just emphasizes the problem. The decisions should be made based on what the laws actually say, not what you wish they said. It's pretty clear that this has always been about about the design, not perceptions of construction quality or the setback. But as much as you might not like the design according to your personal aesthetic, it follows the laws of the county. Given the complexity of laws and regulations in modern society, do you really think it's a good idea for the government to use unrelated technicalities to punish legal activities in response to public political pressure? I would hope you'd see the tremendous danger in that.

It's clear in the county report that the construction is of poor quality, failing to follow approved construction methods. But hey, it's standing, let's give the builder a pass because it's just a technicality.

When you issue a stop work order in the middle of framing, you're going to find "violations."

Come on, we all know that's not the issue here.

Foundation anchors missing in various locations throughout.
Nail pattern incorrect at majority of braced wall panels throughout.

These are not technicalities. It's 30' tall. The braced wall panels are not optional.

And those could be addressed if not for the stop work order. It's obvious they weren't done with the sheeting when the stop work order was issued.

The stop work order does not mean the owner cannot address the deficiencies.
In fact that is exactly the whole point of a stop work order.

The process is as follows:
1. SWO is posted and violations are listed
2. Owner/contractor contacts Land Development Services (LDS) or the assigned inspector
3. A correction plan is reviewed
4. Inspector authorizes specific corrective work
5. Inspection occurs
6. SWO is lifted once compliance is achieved

It sounds like they can't perform the work until the inspector authorizes it. No?

They need to fix the issues. That is the point. Work needs to be done on remediating the issues and then they can continue with the remainder of the project.

The county website suggests they can't do anything except for temporary weatherproofing without explicit county approval, and likely lifting the stop work order. Am I misinterpreting that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


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 been following this thread. I do not know Courtney or anyone in her neighborhood. In fact I live miles away, but am in Fairfax County. I think Courtney has a right to free speech and a right to use the internet and media just like anyone else. I don't think she has control over her neighbor at all. Fairfax County will be the final arbiter in all of this (and it has turned out that there is a setback issue which she may or may not have known or suspected).

I think that almost anyone who has seen a picture of this addition would be concerned and have sympathy for Courtney. Whether you think it's crappy that she has the right to complain is your problem. She has that right. She was not wrong to ask the county to review the construction because, quite frankly, the county's reputation in regard to zoning is on the line here.

Your post just emphasizes the problem. The decisions should be made based on what the laws actually say, not what you wish they said. It's pretty clear that this has always been about about the design, not perceptions of construction quality or the setback. But as much as you might not like the design according to your personal aesthetic, it follows the laws of the county. Given the complexity of laws and regulations in modern society, do you really think it's a good idea for the government to use unrelated technicalities to punish legal activities in response to public political pressure? I would hope you'd see the tremendous danger in that.

DP. It's called a loophole, buddy, and the county is already reevaluating the zoning laws so it can't happen again. In that context, yes, the county should use every means available to get rid of this POS addition that was never the intention of the original law in the first place.

There was no loophole. You just don't like what the current law allows. Assuming you're referring to the height, this clearly adheres to a straightforward reading of the limit- no clever interpretations or complicated interactions between conditions. The implication was well understood before this addition was proposed, as anyone following the multi-unit zoning proposals would know.

Oh come on. Maybe you would prefer the phrase creative interpretation better, but this project is clearly not what was intended for this type of zoning. The current regulations state the intent is "to allow other selected uses which are compatible with the low density residential character of the district". I don't think anyone would consider adding on a Motel 6 to be compatible in this case. 3 or 4 families living there is not low density regardless if related or not, and the height is out of character for the neighborhood. I guess they need to spell everything out these days, but 30 ft height limitation is to allow for 2 stories plus attic. Plus given that plans have significantly changed, I don't think the owner actually cares too much about the law. I will rejoice when this POS is demolished.

The homeowner didn't use creative interpretations either. The selected use here is a home for a single household, not a "Motel 6". If you don't think adult siblings and elderly parents should be able to live with their family, you're free to argue for such a change to the ordinances, but I think you'll find a lack of support. That isn't a situation they were trying to prohibit with the current ordinances.

Other posts here have been quite clear that neither the living situation nor the size of the addition is a problem. Several posts, for instance, said addition should have been instead use more area behind the house rather than the third level. That's a design issue, not a use issue.

And if you think the height and roof use a loophole or creative interpretation, then you haven't been paying attention to other discussions involving zoning requirements. This roof/height combination regularly comes up, both by supports who see it as a way to facilitate more affordable housing, and be detractors who don't like how it looks. That's not a loophole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


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 been following this thread. I do not know Courtney or anyone in her neighborhood. In fact I live miles away, but am in Fairfax County. I think Courtney has a right to free speech and a right to use the internet and media just like anyone else. I don't think she has control over her neighbor at all. Fairfax County will be the final arbiter in all of this (and it has turned out that there is a setback issue which she may or may not have known or suspected).

I think that almost anyone who has seen a picture of this addition would be concerned and have sympathy for Courtney. Whether you think it's crappy that she has the right to complain is your problem. She has that right. She was not wrong to ask the county to review the construction because, quite frankly, the county's reputation in regard to zoning is on the line here.

Your post just emphasizes the problem. The decisions should be made based on what the laws actually say, not what you wish they said. It's pretty clear that this has always been about about the design, not perceptions of construction quality or the setback. But as much as you might not like the design according to your personal aesthetic, it follows the laws of the county. Given the complexity of laws and regulations in modern society, do you really think it's a good idea for the government to use unrelated technicalities to punish legal activities in response to public political pressure? I would hope you'd see the tremendous danger in that.

It's clear in the county report that the construction is of poor quality, failing to follow approved construction methods. But hey, it's standing, let's give the builder a pass because it's just a technicality.

When you issue a stop work order in the middle of framing, you're going to find "violations."

Come on, we all know that's not the issue here.

Foundation anchors missing in various locations throughout.
Nail pattern incorrect at majority of braced wall panels throughout.

These are not technicalities. It's 30' tall. The braced wall panels are not optional.

And those could be addressed if not for the stop work order. It's obvious they weren't done with the sheeting when the stop work order was issued.

The stop work order does not mean the owner cannot address the deficiencies.
In fact that is exactly the whole point of a stop work order.

The process is as follows:
1. SWO is posted and violations are listed
2. Owner/contractor contacts Land Development Services (LDS) or the assigned inspector
3. A correction plan is reviewed
4. Inspector authorizes specific corrective work
5. Inspection occurs
6. SWO is lifted once compliance is achieved

It sounds like they can't perform the work until the inspector authorizes it. No?

They need to fix the issues. That is the point. Work needs to be done on remediating the issues and then they can continue with the remainder of the project.

Nah, bury them behind some drywall and ask for an exception. It's cheaper.

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).
...

County DTA lists a 1 car attached garage which did not exist. Google street view 2012 shows the garage which is gone by 2019. Heat and AC for the conversion? New electrical sockets? Permits for that conversion?

Based on the same tax records, the current owner was the home owner during the 2012-2019 period. My guess they converted the garage without permits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


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 been following this thread. I do not know Courtney or anyone in her neighborhood. In fact I live miles away, but am in Fairfax County. I think Courtney has a right to free speech and a right to use the internet and media just like anyone else. I don't think she has control over her neighbor at all. Fairfax County will be the final arbiter in all of this (and it has turned out that there is a setback issue which she may or may not have known or suspected).

I think that almost anyone who has seen a picture of this addition would be concerned and have sympathy for Courtney. Whether you think it's crappy that she has the right to complain is your problem. She has that right. She was not wrong to ask the county to review the construction because, quite frankly, the county's reputation in regard to zoning is on the line here.

Your post just emphasizes the problem. The decisions should be made based on what the laws actually say, not what you wish they said. It's pretty clear that this has always been about about the design, not perceptions of construction quality or the setback. But as much as you might not like the design according to your personal aesthetic, it follows the laws of the county. Given the complexity of laws and regulations in modern society, do you really think it's a good idea for the government to use unrelated technicalities to punish legal activities in response to public political pressure? I would hope you'd see the tremendous danger in that.

It's clear in the county report that the construction is of poor quality, failing to follow approved construction methods. But hey, it's standing, let's give the builder a pass because it's just a technicality.

When you issue a stop work order in the middle of framing, you're going to find "violations."

Come on, we all know that's not the issue here.

Foundation anchors missing in various locations throughout.
Nail pattern incorrect at majority of braced wall panels throughout.

These are not technicalities. It's 30' tall. The braced wall panels are not optional.

And those could be addressed if not for the stop work order. It's obvious they weren't done with the sheeting when the stop work order was issued.

The stop work order does not mean the owner cannot address the deficiencies.
In fact that is exactly the whole point of a stop work order.

The process is as follows:
1. SWO is posted and violations are listed
2. Owner/contractor contacts Land Development Services (LDS) or the assigned inspector
3. A correction plan is reviewed
4. Inspector authorizes specific corrective work
5. Inspection occurs
6. SWO is lifted once compliance is achieved

It sounds like they can't perform the work until the inspector authorizes it. No?

They need to fix the issues. That is the point. Work needs to be done on remediating the issues and then they can continue with the remainder of the project.

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).
...

County DTA lists a 1 car attached garage which did not exist. Google street view 2012 shows the garage which is gone by 2019. Heat and AC for the conversion? New electrical sockets? Permits for that conversion?

You are just nit-picking. You don't have to build what was permitted. Get a permit for a shed, build a three story addition, claim racism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


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 been following this thread. I do not know Courtney or anyone in her neighborhood. In fact I live miles away, but am in Fairfax County. I think Courtney has a right to free speech and a right to use the internet and media just like anyone else. I don't think she has control over her neighbor at all. Fairfax County will be the final arbiter in all of this (and it has turned out that there is a setback issue which she may or may not have known or suspected).

I think that almost anyone who has seen a picture of this addition would be concerned and have sympathy for Courtney. Whether you think it's crappy that she has the right to complain is your problem. She has that right. She was not wrong to ask the county to review the construction because, quite frankly, the county's reputation in regard to zoning is on the line here.

Your post just emphasizes the problem. The decisions should be made based on what the laws actually say, not what you wish they said. It's pretty clear that this has always been about about the design, not perceptions of construction quality or the setback. But as much as you might not like the design according to your personal aesthetic, it follows the laws of the county. Given the complexity of laws and regulations in modern society, do you really think it's a good idea for the government to use unrelated technicalities to punish legal activities in response to public political pressure? I would hope you'd see the tremendous danger in that.

DP. It's called a loophole, buddy, and the county is already reevaluating the zoning laws so it can't happen again. In that context, yes, the county should use every means available to get rid of this POS addition that was never the intention of the original law in the first place.

There was no loophole. You just don't like what the current law allows. Assuming you're referring to the height, this clearly adheres to a straightforward reading of the limit- no clever interpretations or complicated interactions between conditions. The implication was well understood before this addition was proposed, as anyone following the multi-unit zoning proposals would know.

Oh come on. Maybe you would prefer the phrase creative interpretation better, but this project is clearly not what was intended for this type of zoning. The current regulations state the intent is "to allow other selected uses which are compatible with the low density residential character of the district". I don't think anyone would consider adding on a Motel 6 to be compatible in this case. 3 or 4 families living there is not low density regardless if related or not, and the height is out of character for the neighborhood. I guess they need to spell everything out these days, but 30 ft height limitation is to allow for 2 stories plus attic. Plus given that plans have significantly changed, I don't think the owner actually cares too much about the law. I will rejoice when this POS is demolished.

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).
...

County DTA lists a 1 car attached garage which did not exist. Google street view 2012 shows the garage which is gone by 2019. Heat and AC for the conversion? New electrical sockets? Permits for that conversion?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That addition is so so bad. And completely out of place for that neighborhood. Those poor neighbors who are stuck living next to it. Good for them for raising awareness to stop
That monstrosity but how awful to have that tension with your next door neighbor. There’s no coming back from this.

Even worse, the neighbor’s property value just took a major hit. Who would want to buy a house next to that awful thing.

This. I feel terrible for the neighbors.

Another Asian family would snap it up in a heartbeat. The homeowner will be fine, but it does suck if she likes her neighborhood and doesn’t want to leave.

White flight is real, and this is how it starts, sell now, and move further out.

Prices for all the houses on that block have a good likelihood of dropping because of this project. If someone snaps anything up, it will be because they are paying a lower price.