Beware: Decks Could Soon Count as Lot Coverage

I thought they already do. I built a deck last summer and the lot coverage was calculated during approval. I believe the issue here is including patios as "structures."

I was under the impression the opposite was true. Patios are impervious area and count toward lot coverage but decks were not counted.

Anyone?

Why does this even matter? One drive through Vienna would tell anyone that zoning rules are regularly ignored anyway. Before changing the current rules, how about enforcing the existing ones?

Here is the existing definition of "Structure" in the Vienna Town Code:

STRUCTURE: Anything constructed or erected which requires location on the ground, or is
attached to something having a location on the ground, tents used exclusively for recreational
or camping purposes, and customary garden accessories such as fences, trellises, grapevine
supports, etc., are not included in this definition. (Amended 1-6-97)

It is pretty clear to me that since a patio or a deck is located on the ground, or is attached to something located on the ground, that they already DO count as part of a structure. Nothing changed, just the words "patio and deck" were added just to make what should have already been as plain as the nose on your face even more obvious to the oblivious...

This clarification of the Code has nothing to do with lot coverage or impervious coverage. A patio is impervious, rain cannot pass through it; it counts as lot coverage. A deck is somewhat impervious, water can pass through it, though with some difficulty, and decks have some special provision that I honestly forget without looking up, but a deck can only cover a certain percentage of the total square footage of your lot.

Decks are included in the square footage of a structure (even if they aren't touching the ground), but semi-permeable surfaces, like a brick walkway are not.

Anyway, doesn't this sound like a conversation that a Homeowners' Association board would be having? And why the hell should they be talking about this anyway? Is it a big problem?? How about knocking $1M off of the town budget, and not raising my property taxes?

It kills me that they spend so much time on this stuff, and the zoning regulations in Vienna are a complete joke. Colors of signs? Garish red? But you allow the old grocery store sit there as one of the biggest eyesores in town.

Decks and patios have been calculated in lot coverage since 1991.

Here's background on the term "structure".

http://www.viennava.gov/cgi-bin/uploads/postthisfor04-06-09.pdf

We built a deck last year and were baffled by the ToV requirements. We were told that the deck is calculated differently - not as part of the 25% for houses, sheds, and patios/concrete (not pavers, which are separate). The deck has its own calculation (we were told).

We ended up getting authorization to build an enormous deck (we actually built a much smaller one), and we were forbidden to build a paver patio, which would have looked nicer, but which took us over some other limit. However, someone at the town offices told my husband with a straight face that we could do the paver patio if we tore out the concrete landing pad where our side door steps led. That pad is about 3 ft x 4 ft. It is okay for steps to end up in the mud, it's okay to build a 500 sq ft deck, but your lot is suddenly too covered up if you build a 10 x 10 patio. We have a good-sized lot and an appropriately-sized renovated house.

We bought a bunch of pavers and paved paths all over our back yard without a permit.

Here is the existing definition of "Deck" in the Vienna Town Code:

DECK: A floor area extending from the outside wall of a building above ground level, whether or not its supports rest on the ground, and not sheltered by a roof or enclosed by other than a protective railing on those sides other than the side adjacent to the building wall. (Amend. 2/71; 10/16/72; 10/07/02)

Seems that the TOV definition is pretty specific that a deck does not touch the ground. It hovers like a spaceship.

Here is the existing definition of "Spaceship" in the Vienna Town Code:

SPACESHIP: Similar to a DECK as it does not touch the ground by our definition. Only counts towards 25% lot coverage requirement if your naive enough to believe what we tell you.

Hope this helps.

The 25% lot coverage in town is joke. The Town wants to keep the size of the house in Vienna small(er). They do not like the "McMansions" and every little thing they can do to chip away at the size, they will. I am sick and tired of everyone else telling *me* how big (or small) my house should be.

I get it: keep the houses the same and you keep Maple Avenue the same. Keep the money out and we all stay in a little bubble and we do not have to worry about our neighbor making us feel bad when they come in and teardown their house. Because, the last thing we want to do is remind ourselves is that someone else has more money than we do.

Change is inevitable. Change is life. You stifle it forever, it can/will blow up in your face.

The Town wants to keep the size of the house in Vienna small(er). They do not like the "McMansions" and every little thing they can do to chip away at the size, they will.

I agree. It has nothing to do with water runoff. It is because the town hates the idea of big, expensive houses that it can tax.

The 25% lot coverage in town is joke.

No, this is a joke (or is it?):

Why did the chicken cross the road?

To ruin Teardown Elitism's life!

I agree. It has nothing to do with water runoff. It is because the town hates the idea of big, expensive houses that it can tax.

A 6000 sq foot lot in Arlington can cover 40% of the lot. If the town was interested in increasing their tax base because they love the "big, expensive houses" then we wouldn't stuck with 25% lot coverage.

There's an easy solution to this, which most builders/rennovators have discovered: ignore the rules. I briefly wonder every time why that house on Tapawingo near the water tower is still standing, then I remember why.

Next time you want to build an addition or deck, just make up two sets of plans. Submit the fake ones to the town, then build something huge from the real plans. There's nothing they'll do about it. SoVi Resident noticed this too.

Sad, but experience says it's true.

The town doesn't have any stormwater management treatment requirement for it's single family lots. Keeping the lot coverage and imperviousness down makes a lot of environmental sense in addition to helping new buildings fit in with the surrounding development. 25% lot coverage on a 10,000 s.f. lot is still 2500 s.f. If your driveway is 500 s.f. of that, it still leaves you 2000 s.f. per level to build. There is no reason any single family household needs to be more than 6000 s.f. Most of the homes that are this size in Vienna are the ones that people are having difficulty selling because they are so pricey to buy and maintain as one family.

There is no reason any single family household needs to be more than 6000 s.f.

You are just setting an arbitrary number as to what *you* personally think is too big. Do you also have a number for what is too much money for one person to earn each year?

You are forgetting that houses have porches, decks, garages, sheds, walkways, driveways. ALL of this impacts lot coverage. Your little math formula isn't quite accurate.

Yes, it's my opinion of course, but I haven't forgotten that there are other things to houses that contribute to imperviousness. I'm simply saying that in an existing development that was not planned originally to have such large structures (such as stormwater management treatment for these homes), it makes sense to limit the lot coverage although I don't understand why decks would be included in this. Also in my opinion I think the lot coverage helps to make more attractive and usuable homes in Vienna. I used to live outside Vienna's limits on lots of similar size where the lot coverage wasn't limited and some of the new houses looked ridiculous, had no yard, and didn't sell very well at all. There were tons of overcrowding issues, parking problems, not to mention swm issues and issues with neighbors. Builders like to build the biggest house they can because they like to charge by the square foot. The first person usually buys the house without seeing it till it's built and doesn't understand how large the house really will be in comparison to their lot. When they go to sell that house, they have a very hard time because the house is now too big for the lot and looks cramped. Now if Vienna had smaller lots and better stormwater management I would agree the lot coverage should be larger, but that isn't the case here.

The old builders trick was to build the house to the maximum but put in the double doors which would normally lead to a deck. The door would be baracaded for safety. At the time of approval of the plans they would swear they had no intention of building a deck. Then the realtor would advise clients that they could apply for a variance to install a deck. Eventually the State, I believe, put a halt to most variances by tightening the qualification rules. I believe a builder may have pulled a fast one on the town regarding decks and that is the reason they had to address the issue.

We're really talking about oversized houses built on undersize lots. Huge houses might look okay on a large lot, but they look monstrous on the small lots in town, especially when the other houses are all 1500 sq feet. My objections to McMansions are moral and aesthetic. Maybe folks are concerned less about size and more about the impact of large new houses on adjacent (usually much smaller) homes and the character of neighborhoods. One study I read said that people didn’t regard McMansions as particularly dislikable until the homes were literally twice as big/tall as their neighbors. No one's saying you have to keep everything the same, but what's wrong with improving or renovating existing homes, having reasonable proportions between lots/homes or a neighborhood where wealthy and less wealthy can live together?
If the town gets into further defining/regulating how big is too big it will get messy (as it has in other towns who've passed McMansion ordinances). IMO, I think these huge houses are overkill and more of a status symbol. I can't imagine people fully utilize all that space, but if you think you need a 3 level deck, 5 toilets, a library, 4 car garage and a "brides" staircase, go for it. I'll object though if your tool shed ends up being larger than my house.

I can't imagine people fully utilize all that space, but if you think you need a 3 level deck, 5 toilets, a library, 4 car garage and a "brides" staircase, go for it. I'll object though if your tool shed ends up being larger than my house.

This really is just about how you feel, isn't it? And, we just don't want you to feel bad or morally outraged. We'd hate to have that new house next door hurt your feelings any more than it already has.

From TOV Code:

Lot Coverage: Not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of a lot shall be covered by buildings, accessory buildings, automobile parking spaces and access, sport courts, tennis courts, patios and terraces. (Amend.8-19-91)

Decks, as defined in Section 18-4 and regulated in Section 18-169, may not cover more than five percent (5%) of the total area of a lot. (NEW 8-19-91)

http://www.viennava.gov/Town_Departments/CHAPTER18.pdf

Decks, as defined in Section 18-4 and regulated in Section 18-169, may not cover more than five percent (5%) of the total area of a lot. (NEW 8-19-91)

And, now the town wants decks to be "structures" to count just like an asphalt driveway or house. Yes?

Well, if it's 25 percent lot coverage, how can anyone explain houses like the one on Tapawingo near the water tower, or the huge place on Cottage near Oak, or even several others that are sigificantly more than 50%? Is there ANY zoning enforcement? Too many of these aren't even marginal.

Dear 25% coverage:

Not Yes. NO.

I reiterate NOTHING is changing vis a vis impervious vs non-impervious coverage. A driveway and a house are impervious. A deck is NOT impervious, and can cover no more than 5% of a lot. These are two separate concepts, not related one to the other.

The ONLY change this means is that the WORD "deck" and the WORD "patio" will be included in the definition of a "Structure." Most people already correctly assumed this to be the case. The additon of these two words is nothing more than a clarification of the code. Nothing actually changes, only the wording is added to make it clearer.

Your McMansion Hurts My Feeling, Yes. In this age of conservation of not only energy but also building materials excess consumption should hurt your feelings. I understand the realtors dilema in that the house must be built to sell for twice the price of the land. However, if they could not sell such a house they would not be tearing down useful homes to build the McMansions. I guess some people still do not get it that we have a global crisis. Otherwise there are those who chose a house as an investment and many of them are in forclosure. When will we learn?

Otherwise there are those who chose a house as an investment and many of them are in forclosure.

Is this really the case in Vienna? Are all these new *McMansions* in foreclosure? I am unaware. The foreclosures I've been seeing here and there are usually older homes priced under 500k.

But, as far as energy efficient. Is every person in a 1950s rambler in town completely refitting their home to be as energy efficient as possible? If not, you can hardly take McMansions to task since most of them have brand new Energy Star appliances and all the newest, most efficient insulation, doors, windows, siding, etc.

A good article on McMansions and energy efficiency:

http://www.sightline.org/publications/enewsletters/CSNews/CS_9_05_house

I feel I need to "jump in here with both feet" to dispell some mis-information and to clarify issues regarding lot coverage and building height in TOV. First of all, I stress that the topic of "Decks Soon Being Counted as 'Lot Coverage'" is patently false. That is NOT the case. The WORD "deck" and the WORD "patio" is being added to the Code's definition of "Structure." This in no way alters ANYTHING - It is just a wording clarification of the Code.

I will always call the Town to task where I feel it errs -But agree with it or not, in issues regarding the 25% lot coverage and the 35' building height, the Town could not be more strict. In spite of what you may think is "cheating," I can assure you, there is not ONE INCH of latitude given by the Town to the Builders. The Town is DEATH on lot coverage and height restriction. I have personally been in a situation where we had to change an entire set of roof trusses, as the height came in at 35' 2". I know builders who have carved off sections of driveway, due to the fact that the coverage came in at 25.04 percent. Vienna is the ONLY jurisdiction that I am aware of where there is one specific town employee, whose ONLY charge is to verify lot coverage and roof heights. We are the ONLY town that requires an " As Built" height measurement, whereby the builder must pay ($400 - $600) for an unbiased county approved engineer (whose license is on the line) to come out and physically measure the height of a home IN FRONT OF a town building code employee, BEFORE a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.

There is 0% "cheating" allowed in the Town of Vienna. All addresses are cataloged by the Town, and all are available for review and scrutiny. One has only to go to the Department of Zoning and request the file, and there are signed, documented, cross-referenced papers verifying lot coverage and building height.

There are things the Town does not do "right" in my opinion, but this is not one of them.

Do yourself a favor, and instead of continuing to complain about houses that you think are not in compliance, go down to Town Hall and ask for the records - One reason they are there is to prove to the citizens that houses have been measured corectly.

Regarding the expense of running a older home vs a McMansion (yes, I hate this word).

My old 957 sq ft 1955 rambler which had brand new windows, heat pump, doors and furnace. The gas bill for Jan 2004 was $253.13. The new home we built in 2005 had a Jan 06 gas bill of $154.09. There is a second floor heat pump which brought the heating costs to almost identical to what we paid before in a house 1/4 the size.

As far as building height limitations are concerned I would claim they are using "Voodoo math". Granted some of the complaints on this blog are misconceived, like the big house built on two lots which they think is over covered. But how can you say zero percent when you have Bukont's Locust Street complex as an example.

What a bunch of whiney wimps. get over it. If you want a bigger house, move, or change the code.

I want to build a dock from my back deck to extend to the Potomac River so I can go fishing at night. But the stupid people in the TOV said I can't, so I moving from my existing home on Windover Avenue to Great Falls and building a 55,000 sq ft house! So there!

You all can go whine.... and to hell with the TOV, damn them for not allowing be to build my dock over the streets and back yards of my neighbors all the way to the Potomac River!

Retired Navy, I'll bet there is nothing in the TOV code to keep you from tunneling from your house to the Potomac River.

It always comes down to smaller houses vs bigger houses in Vienna, right? I have a 1970s house that we have fully renovated and added to, and now it's big(er) and gorgeous. But I'm incensed that the builders seem to get away with more than 25% lot coverage (see house on Battle St and several Ayrhill homes), and I'm told I have to tear out the concrete pad at the bottom of my laundry room steps if I want to build a nice patio. The builders obviously get variances, but homeownners like my husband and I are told that we will "never get a variance." Never. That really burns me up. The TOV seems like it wants big nice houses, but I can't make mine big and nice unless I tear it down and pay someone $1.8M. It's absolutely infuriating.

And no, I'm not moving out of the TOV. My kids go to school here, and we really like living in this area. And, of course, we could never afford to sell our house...

Wyltn- You raise a good question- One that has been -- and I dare say WILL be addressed in the future by TOV -

What you refer to is "berming" (Generally a noun "Berm," so not sure quite how to spell it as a verb.)

Anyway, in the state of VA, FfxCo, TOV, all jurisdictions that I am aware of, one may alter existing topography within limits, not to exceed normality for adjacent properties.

Simply put, Mr. Bukont could not (and did not) build a mountain- But, he was within parameters (and did) build a mole hill. VIVA the under-story parking!

The structure does not tower over neighboring buildings, and is not noticibly higher than the apartments/condos next door.

Mr. Bukont's building fits in to the neighborhood, and does not stand out -

Therefore, why call it out?

"Berming" is not a "wrong" concept in that it may offer use appropriate value to undervalued infill lots.

Case in point, Wyltn- Have a look at that corner lot on Park and Tapawingo- It's In a geographic BOWL- Ain't Nobody gonna touch that one without bringin' grade up to level!

So BEEN THERE, you are part of the problem. They built the current house on Park and Tapawingo without berming and they could do it again. The problem is with the authorities who have the right to control grade changes. The house up the street from Tapawingo has a basement built higher than the first floor of the neighboring property. Builders are writing their own rules, like building four stories under the thirty five foot rule when the ordinance says not to exceed two and a half stories. You don't like the house in a bowl but the State when rebuilding Park Street created such a situation for the homeowner on the corner of Adahi and Park St.
Your defence of Bukonts project on Locust Street is really amusing and what you said reflects on your reliability to adhere to "common sense" if not the law.

Dear Wyltn:

Thanks for the input - There is an issue for the Town of Vienna that is perhaps more insiduous than the heights of our residential homes - Builders really are not "cheating," nor do they have special dispensation. Some have posted here to that effect, but we do have rules and laws in place that prevent that.

Here's an issue that I see as even more important than residential height (which is held in check...) By keeping those SAME rules, ie 35" height on COMMERCIAL buiildings, we are doing vast and irreparable harm to our Town. No, I do not advocate "HIGH" buildings, merely those of 4-6 stories, which are modest, approprate, and keep those current owners from having to place mechanical devices upon roofs (Thus creating "Flat Town" with no architechtural interest, which is where we stand now...)

35' Commercial is passe' and does not work for the current times.

Would you not LIKE underground parking? CAN'T HAPPEN with the 35' commercial restrictions! Thus, your friend, Mr. Bukont, built the spaces where Bazins exists...AND included a "step up" (BERM, if you will...) at the front of the sturcture, to comply with the 35' restriction....

The ONLY other case in point, where underground parking is built is the building on Park Street, adjacent to Michele Rene and next to the Whole Foods parking lot, (Historically, a building that was PROTESTED during its original construction for being "too tall" - Go figure...) Anyway, if you recall, last fall, there was a flurry of activity outside that building, with a lovely little retaining wall going up---The whole reason was not for the owner to find his own Nirvana building a retaining walll - It was because, with the undergroud parking, that builiding was cited for being "over height", and the choice was to cut off the roof or build up the grade.

Really, unless the height of commercial is raised a MODICUM in TOV, we can NEVER have undergroud parking, and we will continue to be a 1950s town with seas of asphalt on either side of Maple Avenue!

Hope this makes sense to some, although I am prepared that it won't be accepted by all - I'm just tryin' to explain things the best I can to those who will listen...

Nice BTDT, but if the house built to a standard over thirty five feet is next door to me that is the most important concern. I don't give a damn how tall the building are in the commercial district except I have to accept some compromise to please the town fathers. From what I heard, Bukont's Church St. project deviated from the original approval because he encountered water when digging the basement. Gee, we didn't have that option when building the police station. The town just bought two pumps for twenty thousand dollars each to keep the PS from flooding (again).

Regarding TOV Code:

Lot Coverage: Not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of a lot shall be covered by buildings, accessory buildings, automobile parking spaces and access, sport courts, tennis courts, patios and terraces. (Amend.8-19-91)

Decks, as defined in Section 18-4 and regulated in Section 18-169, may not cover more than five percent (5%) of the total area of a lot. (NEW 8-19-91)

http://www.viennava.gov/Town_Departments/CHAPTER18.pdf

I have a question: my mother's house has a gravel driveway that is PERMEABLE (she has lived there since 1954, so this is an old driveway), and old brick patios laid in sand (PERMEABLE). Her house is a mix of pre-civil war that was added onto through the 1950s - mostly one floor, so it has a large footprint at this point.

she wants to add a screen porch. I just added up the footage covered by the patios, pool etc and she is at 25% without even counting the driveway......TOV says the driveway counts toward the 25%......why? it is permeable.

Also: if she should change her mind and put in a deck, that is considered apart from the 25%? What about the fact that she is already OVER the 25% - would she get dinged for that?

I am back. Just to clarify a point. The town of Vienna has changed the wording in the ordinance covering home construction height. It originally read feet above average grade. In my experience no one could explain how it was applied. Although the ordinance for homes has been changed you can still find the old rule under other building parameters.