Reston design board reopens Waterview patio decision after neighbor appeal over fully enclosed fence

The Reston Design Review Board reopened review of a Waterview patio application on Feb. 18, 2025, after an affected-party appeal argued the patio was being treated without addressing an existing full‑height privacy fence that the cluster's patio standard says patios "may include low stone or brick walls" but "may not be completely enclosed." The board agreed to rehear the matter de novo and then approved the patio replacement while adding language that the existing fence does not meet current cluster standards and must come into compliance if replaced or upon property transfer.

Why it matters: Waterview cluster members and covenant officers argued the panel's original decision did not mention the fence and therefore set a precedent that could allow fully enclosed patios in places the cluster standard forbids. The case raised a recurring compliance question: when an owner makes a limited exterior change, at what point must older, preexisting elements be brought up to current cluster standards?

At a Feb. 18 hearing, Neil (covenants officer, Waterview cluster) told the board he was appealing because the original panel did not address an existing board‑on‑board (solid) fence that surrounds the owner's rear yard. "The patio is fully, enclosed solidly, which it seems is clearly in violation of the Waterview cluster patio standard," Neil said, adding that the original decision was silent on the enclosure and so appeared to permit it. The appellant asked the board to amend the decision or grant the appeal and require an appropriate remedy documented in the DRB record.

Panel members Emily (DRB member) and Samantha (DRB member) explained they had treated the application as a patio replacement only and had not considered the fence because the application did not propose changing it. Emily said the original panel viewed the submission as "removal and replacement" of the pavers and not an application for a new fence; Samantha agreed it was not part of that application but said the cluster should find a separate vehicle to address nonconforming fences.

Board counsel Tony (legal counsel) clarified that amendments to a decision could not be made while an appeal was pending. Chair Michael (chair, Reston DRB) then called a motion to accept the appeal for de novo review. The motion passed (6 yes, 0 no, 2 abstain: Emily and Samantha), and after an executive session the board heard the owner's presentation.

The property owner (applicant) told the board he wished only to repair and replace cracked pavers and that he believed similar fences existed on several nearby properties. He said he had bought the house with the fence in place and that much of the fencing in the area predated the 1993 Waterview standard. The appellant and staff discussed whether previous approvals existed for ornamental fences visible in submitted photos; staff (Steph, staff member) said she did not have those records on hand and would check.

After the de novo hearing, a DRB member moved to approve the patio replacement as submitted with a caveat that the board recognize the existing board fence does not comply with current Waterview cluster standards and that the fence must be brought into conformance upon replacement or transfer of the property. The motion included an amendment to require conformance "with the then-current cluster standard." The amended motion was seconded and passed 8–0. The board directed staff and the cluster to document the nonconforming fence in the approval letter so the issue is on the record for future enforcement or review.

Board members and staff discussed practical next steps: whether the cluster should pursue enforcement now, require a separate fence application, or simply record that the existing fence is nonconforming and will have to be brought into compliance when altered. Staff agreed to check archived approval records for other enclosed fences in the neighborhood and to include a clear statement in the approval letter so inspectors and the cluster have the intended interpretation on file.

The board's decision allows the owner to proceed with the patio replacement but places the nonconforming fence on the record and requires compliance on replacement or transfer of the property; staff will follow up on past approvals for nearby fences.

The board minutes show this item drew extended discussion from multiple members, the affected‑party appellant and the property owner, and produced two recorded outcomes: acceptance of the appeal for de novo review and the subsequent approval with the caveat about future conformance requirements.