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.
This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.
Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.
.
What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.
We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.
They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.
The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.
To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.
The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.
In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.
That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.
Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.
You'd be wrong.
From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).
Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.
This is imperceptible. There is no impact.
It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.
I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.
Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.
Ok, that's what you mean.
Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.
Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.
No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.
You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.
Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.
The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.
Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.
I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?
What will look effectively the same?
It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.
There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.
If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.
I think you know that.
That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?
The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.
Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.
They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built
They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.
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.
This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.
Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.
.
What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.
We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.
They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.
The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.
To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.
The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.
In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.
That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.
Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.
You'd be wrong.
From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).
Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.
This is imperceptible. There is no impact.
It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.
I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.
Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.
Ok, that's what you mean.
Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.
Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.
No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.
You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.
Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.
The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.
Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.
I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?
What will look effectively the same?
It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.
There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.
If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.
I think you know that.
That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?
The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.
Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.
They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built
They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.
How did they deliberately mislead the zoning board? Is there any indication the owner didn't sincerely believe that the fence line was the property line?
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.
This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.
Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.
.
What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.
We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.
They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.
The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.
To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.
The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.
In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.
That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.
Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.
You'd be wrong.
From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).
Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.
This is imperceptible. There is no impact.
It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.
I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.
Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.
Ok, that's what you mean.
Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.
Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.
No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.
You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.
Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.
The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.
Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.
I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?
What will look effectively the same?
It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.
There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.
If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.
I think you know that.
That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?
The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.
Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.
They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built
They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.
How did they deliberately mislead the zoning board? Is there any indication the owner didn't sincerely believe that the fence line was the property line?
Isn’t the guy an engineer? Shouldn’t an engineer have known bettter than to make the mistakes that led to all the issues with this project? The setback, the following of the wrong property line, not having a pre construction survey done, putting a garage on the plans but not following through with a garage in reality. So many accidental errors.
How could someone trained as an engineer make so many mistakes?
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.
This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.
Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.
.
What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.
We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.
They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.
The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.
To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.
The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.
In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.
That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.
Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.
You'd be wrong.
From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).
Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.
This is imperceptible. There is no impact.
It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.
I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.
Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.
Ok, that's what you mean.
Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.
Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.
No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.
You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.
Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.
The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.
Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.
I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?
What will look effectively the same?
It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.
There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.
If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.
I think you know that.
That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?
The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.
Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.
They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built
They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.
How did they deliberately mislead the zoning board? Is there any indication the owner didn't sincerely believe that the fence line was the property line?
Isn’t the guy an engineer? Shouldn’t an engineer have known bettter than to make the mistakes that led to all the issues with this project? The setback, the following of the wrong property line, not having a pre construction survey done, putting a garage on the plans but not following through with a garage in reality. So many accidental errors.
How could someone trained as an engineer make so many mistakes?
He's an engineer? What kind of engineer?
Sounds like negligence, not intentional wrongdoing.
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.
This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.
Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.
.
What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.
We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.
They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.
The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.
To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.
The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.
In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.
That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.
Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.
You'd be wrong.
From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).
Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.
This is imperceptible. There is no impact.
It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.
I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.
Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.
Ok, that's what you mean.
Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.
Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.
No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.
You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.
Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.
The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.
Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.
I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?
What will look effectively the same?
It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.
There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.
If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.
I think you know that.
That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?
The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.
Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.
They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built
They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.
I don't think you understand what "deliberately" means.
He made a mistake. From the aerial photos, there's a fence between their properties that has effectively served as the dividing line between their yards. It appears he thought it was the dividing line. Was that a good or safe assumption to make? Obviously not, that's why it was a mistake.
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.
This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.
Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.
.
What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.
We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.
They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.
The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.
To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.
The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.
In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.
That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.
Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.
You'd be wrong.
From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).
Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.
This is imperceptible. There is no impact.
It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.
I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.
Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.
Ok, that's what you mean.
Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.
Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.
No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.
You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.
Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.
The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.
Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.
I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?
What will look effectively the same?
It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.
There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.
If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.
I think you know that.
That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?
The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.
Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.
They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built
They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.
How did they deliberately mislead the zoning board? Is there any indication the owner didn't sincerely believe that the fence line was the property line?
Isn’t the guy an engineer? Shouldn’t an engineer have known bettter than to make the mistakes that led to all the issues with this project? The setback, the following of the wrong property line, not having a pre construction survey done, putting a garage on the plans but not following through with a garage in reality. So many accidental errors.
How could someone trained as an engineer make so many mistakes?
He's an engineer? What kind of engineer?
Sounds like negligence, not intentional wrongdoing.
This is all redirected anger based on what the addition looks like. If this was a more traditional addition, I'm sure we wouldn't see this level of animosity toward the homeowner or his mistakes. If you heard someone skipped a survey and measured from a fence, you'd call them careless, maybe negligent. But you certainly wouldn't accuse them of deliberate misconduct.
There's one or two posters here that are really worked up. They must be homeowners in that neighborhood.
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.
This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.
Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.
.
What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.
We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.
They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.
The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.
To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.
The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.
In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.
That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.
Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.
You'd be wrong.
From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).
Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.
This is imperceptible. There is no impact.
It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.
I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.
Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.
Ok, that's what you mean.
Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.
Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.
No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.
You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.
Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.
The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.
Exactly. Due to the building’s height and it’s distance over the setback, the entire volume of the addition is the problem. ( volume = length x width x height)
Anonymous wrote:Wait... My mind was going the other way. Reducing the width of the building is just going to reduce the height needed to achieve the necessary slope.
But this looks like a flat foot anyway, so it would only need 3 inches of drop over 12 feet. Though you probably wouldn't go that flat.
As I side note, I also looked at the shadow more closely. Based on the sun position, Fox came by with with their helicopter right at, or shortly after, noon. That seems like too much of a coincidence to not be intentional. They wanted to catch the shadow at it's longest point.
Shadows are not longest at noon.z
They are if you're trying to maximize area of the shadows on the neighbor's property.
Wrong. Shadows are longest at the beginning and end of the day. Do you get outside much?
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?
No. The cost of making a mistake is too high, so no one rolls the dice.
Except it does happen. A post-construction example in Arlington:
V-11945-23-UP-1: A use permit request by Kohlmark Builders, Inc. on behalf of Stuart and Norma Jean Young, the owners, to permit a rear setback of 24.6 feet to the building wall (sunroom) instead of 25 feet to the building wall (sunroom) as required, and to permit a left side setback of 4.6 feet to the screened A/C units instead of 5 feet to the A/C units as required; re: after the fact approval of sunroom wall and A/C units to an existing one-family detached dwelling in the R-5 zoning district, on the premises known as 1007 18th Street South (Arlington Ridge).
WHEREAS, the BZA has determined that the modification is compatible with development in
the surrounding neighborhood and that the structure’s overall footprint size and placement are
similar to comparable structures on other properties surrounding the lot in question and the
proposal would help preserve natural land form, historical features and/or significant trees.
That would be a problem in this specific case.
Again, "modification" refers to the setback reduction, not the entire project.
The use of the word structure in the BZA's decision is a clear reference to the building addition that was created by the project. Your intentional misreading isn't cute.
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.
This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.
Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.
.
What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.
We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.
They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.
The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.
To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.
The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.
In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.
That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.
Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.
You'd be wrong.
From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).
Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.
This is imperceptible. There is no impact.
It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.
I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.
Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.
Ok, that's what you mean.
Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.
Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.
No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.
You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.
Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.
The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.
Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.
I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?
What will look effectively the same?
It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.
There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.
If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.
I think you know that.
That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?
The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.
Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.
They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built
They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.
How did they deliberately mislead the zoning board? Is there any indication the owner didn't sincerely believe that the fence line was the property line?
Isn’t the guy an engineer? Shouldn’t an engineer have known bettter than to make the mistakes that led to all the issues with this project? The setback, the following of the wrong property line, not having a pre construction survey done, putting a garage on the plans but not following through with a garage in reality. So many accidental errors.
How could someone trained as an engineer make so many mistakes?
He's an engineer? What kind of engineer?
Sounds like negligence, not intentional wrongdoing.
This is all redirected anger based on what the addition looks like. If this was a more traditional addition, I'm sure we wouldn't see this level of animosity toward the homeowner or his mistakes. If you heard someone skipped a survey and measured from a fence, you'd call them careless, maybe negligent. But you certainly wouldn't accuse them of deliberate misconduct.
There's one or two posters here that are really worked up. They must be homeowners in that neighborhood.
If the structure was more traditional, it wouldn't be anywhere near the setback. A survey would be unnecessary.
As for deliberate misconduct, I believe the garage elimination was deliberate. That wasn't reflected on the original permitted plans. That's not a mistake or careless.
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?
No. The cost of making a mistake is too high, so no one rolls the dice.
Except it does happen. A post-construction example in Arlington:
V-11945-23-UP-1: A use permit request by Kohlmark Builders, Inc. on behalf of Stuart and Norma Jean Young, the owners, to permit a rear setback of 24.6 feet to the building wall (sunroom) instead of 25 feet to the building wall (sunroom) as required, and to permit a left side setback of 4.6 feet to the screened A/C units instead of 5 feet to the A/C units as required; re: after the fact approval of sunroom wall and A/C units to an existing one-family detached dwelling in the R-5 zoning district, on the premises known as 1007 18th Street South (Arlington Ridge).
WHEREAS, the BZA has determined that the modification is compatible with development in
the surrounding neighborhood and that the structure’s overall footprint size and placement are
similar to comparable structures on other properties surrounding the lot in question and the
proposal would help preserve natural land form, historical features and/or significant trees.
That would be a problem in this specific case.
Again, "modification" refers to the setback reduction, not the entire project.
The use of the word structure in the BZA's decision is a clear reference to the building addition that was created by the project. Your intentional misreading isn't cute.
Go ahead and try that in your comments to the BZA, and definitely don't bother consulting a lawyer first.
Anonymous wrote:Wait... My mind was going the other way. Reducing the width of the building is just going to reduce the height needed to achieve the necessary slope.
But this looks like a flat foot anyway, so it would only need 3 inches of drop over 12 feet. Though you probably wouldn't go that flat.
As I side note, I also looked at the shadow more closely. Based on the sun position, Fox came by with with their helicopter right at, or shortly after, noon. That seems like too much of a coincidence to not be intentional. They wanted to catch the shadow at it's longest point.
Shadows are not longest at noon.z
They are if you're trying to maximize area of the shadows on the neighbor's property.
Wrong. Shadows are longest at the beginning and end of the day. Do you get outside much?
Did you look at the orientation of the houses?
Yes, the shadow would be longer at other times but much of it wouldn't fall on the neighbor's property then.
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.
This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.
Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.
.
What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.
We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.
They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.
The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.
To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.
The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.
In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.
That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.
Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.
You'd be wrong.
From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).
Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.
This is imperceptible. There is no impact.
It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.
I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.
Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.
Ok, that's what you mean.
Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.
Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.
No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.
You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.
Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.
The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.
Exactly. Due to the building’s height and it’s distance over the setback, the entire volume of the addition is the problem. ( volume = length x width x height)
How does that volume impact you? It isn't is your yard. It doesn't impede anything you might do. To the extent there is an impact, it is visual, except the distance is so small that you wouldn't perceive it.
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.
This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.
Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.
.
What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.
We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.
They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.
The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.
To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.
The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.
In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.
That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.
Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.
You'd be wrong.
From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).
Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.
This is imperceptible. There is no impact.
It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.
I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.
Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.
Ok, that's what you mean.
Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.
Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.
No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.
You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.
Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.
The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.
Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.
I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?
What will look effectively the same?
It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.
There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.
If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.
I think you know that.
That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?
The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.
Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.
They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built
They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.
How did they deliberately mislead the zoning board? Is there any indication the owner didn't sincerely believe that the fence line was the property line?
Isn’t the guy an engineer? Shouldn’t an engineer have known bettter than to make the mistakes that led to all the issues with this project? The setback, the following of the wrong property line, not having a pre construction survey done, putting a garage on the plans but not following through with a garage in reality. So many accidental errors.
How could someone trained as an engineer make so many mistakes?
He's an engineer? What kind of engineer?
Sounds like negligence, not intentional wrongdoing.
This is all redirected anger based on what the addition looks like. If this was a more traditional addition, I'm sure we wouldn't see this level of animosity toward the homeowner or his mistakes. If you heard someone skipped a survey and measured from a fence, you'd call them careless, maybe negligent. But you certainly wouldn't accuse them of deliberate misconduct.
There's one or two posters here that are really worked up. They must be homeowners in that neighborhood.
If the structure was more traditional, it wouldn't be anywhere near the setback. A survey would be unnecessary.
As for deliberate misconduct, I believe the garage elimination was deliberate. That wasn't reflected on the original permitted plans. That's not a mistake or careless.
Not everyone lives in neighborhoods with giant lots. These homes are all close to the setbacks.
At first I thought the garage was intentional, but now I'm not so sure. There was no reason to hide it when there's room out front for a second parking spot (albeit one that would be a pain to actually use). I think it is far more likely that it was a late change, and then they got sloppy about submitting a revised plan.
Deliberately hiding the intent on the plan doesn't help much if you don't also hide what is constructed. An inspector was always going to notice that. If this was done deliberately to get around the parking requirements, they would have built a cheap garage that was easy to modify after-the-fact to a room.
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.
This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.
Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.
.
What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.
We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.
They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.
The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.
To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.
The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.
In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.
That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.
Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.
You'd be wrong.
From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).
Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.
This is imperceptible. There is no impact.
It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.
I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.
Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.
Ok, that's what you mean.
Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.
Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.
No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.
You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.
Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.
The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.
Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.
I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?
What will look effectively the same?
It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.
There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.
If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.
I think you know that.
That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?
The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.
Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.
They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built
They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.
How did they deliberately mislead the zoning board? Is there any indication the owner didn't sincerely believe that the fence line was the property line?
Isn’t the guy an engineer? Shouldn’t an engineer have known bettter than to make the mistakes that led to all the issues with this project? The setback, the following of the wrong property line, not having a pre construction survey done, putting a garage on the plans but not following through with a garage in reality. So many accidental errors.
How could someone trained as an engineer make so many mistakes?
He's an engineer? What kind of engineer?
Sounds like negligence, not intentional wrongdoing.
This is all redirected anger based on what the addition looks like. If this was a more traditional addition, I'm sure we wouldn't see this level of animosity toward the homeowner or his mistakes. If you heard someone skipped a survey and measured from a fence, you'd call them careless, maybe negligent. But you certainly wouldn't accuse them of deliberate misconduct.
There's one or two posters here that are really worked up. They must be homeowners in that neighborhood.
If the structure was more traditional, it wouldn't be anywhere near the setback. A survey would be unnecessary.
As for deliberate misconduct, I believe the garage elimination was deliberate. That wasn't reflected on the original permitted plans. That's not a mistake or careless.
Not everyone lives in neighborhoods with giant lots. These homes are all close to the setbacks.
At first I thought the garage was intentional, but now I'm not so sure. There was no reason to hide it when there's room out front for a second parking spot (albeit one that would be a pain to actually use). I think it is far more likely that it was a late change, and then they got sloppy about submitting a revised plan.
Deliberately hiding the intent on the plan doesn't help much if you don't also hide what is constructed. An inspector was always going to notice that. If this was done deliberately to get around the parking requirements, they would have built a cheap garage that was easy to modify after-the-fact to a room.
You appear to be claiming that he accidentally didn't build a garage?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}