Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deck Replacement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ARB defers decision on enlarged front deck at Holland Hills home after questions about plans and details
Summary
The Fairfax County Architectural Review Board deferred an application to replace and enlarge a deck at 2113 Mason Hill Drive in the Holland Hills historic overlay district after members found mismatches between the applicant’s presentation and submitted drawings and requested clearer structural and railing details.
The Fairfax County Architectural Review Board on June 11 deferred action on an application to replace and expand a front deck at 2113 Mason Hill Drive, citing inconsistent drawings, missing construction details and unresolved safety concerns.
Brook Williams, the applicant’s representative, said the existing deck is rotting and must be replaced and described the proposed work as “modest in scale,” with open-wire railing and steps reoriented to clarify the front entry. John Burns disclosed that he owns property in Holland Hills but said the subject properties are not visible from his home and he could participate in the matter.
Board members repeatedly pointed to discrepancies between the images shown at the meeting and the architectural submission, including conflicting railing details (wire cable versus drawn spindles), absent knee-brace details in the renderings, and uncertainty about the exact projection of the deck from the chimney face. Mr. Kolinsky requested numerical setbacks and enlarged plan views; other members said the county’s standard deck details had been pasted into the submission and that the applicant must show the actual proposed assembly and any test or product cut sheets.
Several members framed the concerns around permit and safety review: one said the county needs documentation showing the proposed railing meets required load and safety standards, and another noted that the standard county details are intended for rear-yard decks and may not be visually appropriate for a prominent front addition.
Because the board concluded there was insufficient detail to make an approval, Mr. Daniel moved to defer the item so the applicant could address the board’s comments. Mr. Kolinsky seconded the motion and the board voted in favor to defer. The applicant was asked to return with clarified drawings, measurements showing the deck’s projection from the chimney face, specific material/cut-sheet information, and structural details (including knee braces and guardrail testing) to support a future approval.
The board did not take a final vote on the design; the item will return after the applicant submits revised documentation.
