Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Greenbrier is a dump. Who cares?

Quiet, piggy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage.

Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements.

Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?

So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact?

So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?

Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed.

The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.

The problem is that it isn’t just 6 inches that’s the problem. It’s six inches all along the part of the wall that intrudes on the set back, with all of that extending 30 feet in height. That’s a lot of volume that is too close to the property line, so a very big mistake. It is very noticeable to the neighbors and anyone walking past. It is definitely not insignificant.

Yes, the addition being large and tall is noticcable. Yes, it is noticeably close to the property line.

The question, though, is whether moving it 6 inches back would change that in any meaningful way. I don't think it would.

The important point is that the law requires it to be six inches further back from the property line than it is. The homeowner/contractor did not take the actions he could have taken to line up the foundation correctly, so now it is closer to the property line than the zoning regulations allow.
The owner was careless in not having a pre construction survey done. Unfortunately, the mistake is noticeable. It’s up to the county to decide what actions will need to be taken.

If I was the owner, I'd create some 3D renderings comparing the current placement to 6 inches back. The difference isn't going to be noticable. The reality is that it is just going to look like a big, ugly building either way.

[Anonymous]

It looks like Courtney has her backyard shed in the setback. In two, actually. Maybe she thought they should cancel each other out. Will one of you tell her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Courtney has her backyard shed in the setback. In two, actually. Maybe she thought they should cancel each other out. Will one of you tell her?

So we’re back to the verging-on-creepy posts about the neighbor again, I see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Courtney has her backyard shed in the setback. In two, actually. Maybe she thought they should cancel each other out. Will one of you tell her?

So we’re back to the verging-on-creepy posts about the neighbor again, I see.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Courtney has her backyard shed in the setback. In two, actually. Maybe she thought they should cancel each other out. Will one of you tell her?

So we’re back to the verging-on-creepy posts about the neighbor again, I see.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Courtney has her backyard shed in the setback. In two, actually. Maybe she thought they should cancel each other out. Will one of you tell her?

So we’re back to the verging-on-creepy posts about the neighbor again, I see.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage.

Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements.

Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?

So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact?

So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?

Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed.

The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.

There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot - disagree with your comment that there is enough room for a second parking spot. Tandem parking is parking two cars end to end, one in front of the other. The driveway as is with the addition does not support that.

Having a second parking spot side by side won’t work either because there is not enough space with the shortened driveway and one car width of an apron for a car to get onto a second parking spot, even without a car in the other parking spot. He really hasn’t left much space on the driveway with the addition.

The stairs were placed because the driveway elevation is different than the addition elevation. Not sure you can just remove the stairs, especially if you put in sliding doors vs windows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage.

Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements.

Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?

So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact?

So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?

Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed.

The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.

There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot - disagree with your comment that there is enough room for a second parking spot. Tandem parking is parking two cars end to end, one in front of the other. The driveway as is with the addition does not support that.

Having a second parking spot side by side won’t work either because there is not enough space with the shortened driveway and one car width of an apron for a car to get onto a second parking spot, even without a car in the other parking spot. He really hasn’t left much space on the driveway with the addition.

The stairs were placed because the driveway elevation is different than the addition elevation. Not sure you can just remove the stairs, especially if you put in sliding doors vs windows.

The point is that there's no requirement for parking spots to be independently accessible. Tandem parking obviously requires that and is allowed. There's nothing in the code that says that can't also be true for side by side parking.

I disagree there isn't space to straighten the car out. You'd need the parking pad extended to the sidewalk. Worst case, you might need to pull in crooked, back over the sidewalk again, and then pull forward straight.

You don't need stairs in front of sliding doors if the doors are sealed shut to prevent them from opening. This is common with new houses when they wait to build a deck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage.

Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements.

Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?

So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact?

So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?

Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed.

The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.

County rezoning has mandated tear downs for much less.

Yeah, a pp cited sheds. Except sheds can be (relatively) easily moved. Got any examples involving houses or businesses?

There's probably a reason it doesn't happen with large builds. There is a very real possibility that the county will say tear it down, and a responsible builder will take measures to avoid a five or six figure mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Courtney has her backyard shed in the setback. In two, actually. Maybe she thought they should cancel each other out. Will one of you tell her?

So we’re back to the verging-on-creepy posts about the neighbor again, I see.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage.

Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements.

Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?

So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact?

So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?

Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed.

The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.

County rezoning has mandated tear downs for much less.

Yeah, a pp cited sheds. Except sheds can be (relatively) easily moved. Got any examples involving houses or businesses?

There's probably a reason it doesn't happen with large builds. There is a very real possibility that the county will say tear it down, and a responsible builder will take measures to avoid a five or six figure mistake.

So no examples?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Courtney has her backyard shed in the setback. In two, actually. Maybe she thought they should cancel each other out. Will one of you tell her?

So we’re back to the verging-on-creepy posts about the neighbor again, I see.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

You mean, the county may have granted a setback reduction? The horror!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Courtney has her backyard shed in the setback. In two, actually. Maybe she thought they should cancel each other out. Will one of you tell her?

So we’re back to the verging-on-creepy posts about the neighbor again, I see.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

I’m pretty sure that she didn’t hire the news crews or pay for the cost of operating the helicopter. Obviously this addition is so outrageous it made for an interesting news story. Interesting enough it was worthy of the news to spend the money to report on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Courtney has her backyard shed in the setback. In two, actually. Maybe she thought they should cancel each other out. Will one of you tell her?

So we’re back to the verging-on-creepy posts about the neighbor again, I see.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

You mean, the county may have granted a setback reduction? The horror!

The county is not granting those for sheds. That's why people don't get permits.