Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

And?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Eliminating the approved garage to add a 3rd apartment that would not have been approved is pretty deliberate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

And?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Eliminating the approved garage to add a 3rd apartment that would not have been approved is pretty deliberate.

This doesn't have any apartment units.

[Anonymous]

The whole sidebar on "shadows longest at noon" is a particular delight of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

And?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The garage is not a last minute change.

If the garage was a last minute change, then the foundation would be the same height as the driveway, not raised above the driveway to the point of needing a porch and steps to access it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

And?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

No, I'm saying the permitting and construction takes time, and it isn't uncommon for people to make changes. He was sloppy, failing to submit a revised plan.

He obviously didn't attempt to hide the garage when they built it. I'm guessing they intended extend the second parking pad to satisfy the parking requirement and procrastinated on submitting the new plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

And?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The garage is not a last minute change.

If the garage was a last minute change, then the foundation would be the same height as the driveway, not raised above the driveway to the point of needing a porch and steps to access it.

Not last minute, a couple months probably passed between submitting the plan to the county and working on the foundation.

Your version doesn't make any sense. Why deliberately include and remove a garage when it would obviously be noticed during inspections instead of just including a second parking pad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You clearly don't understand how shadows work, and now you are claiming you know how they would work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You clearly don't understand how shadows work, and now you are claiming you know how they would work.

The homes are mostly north/south of each other. Actually, the neighbor's house is a little northwest. The So the shadows are longer in the morning, but much of them don't fall on the neighbor's property, with the neighbor's own house and tree also shading the front and backyards. In the afternoon, the shadow mostly misses the neighbor's house.

If you want a sort of "worst-case" photo on the shadows, it's around noon in the winter. A little after so the shadow casts on the front yard and the sun is a little lower, but not so late that the trees block the sun (or for the shadow's direction to shift out of the yard).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You clearly don't understand how shadows work, and now you are claiming you know how they would work.

The homes are mostly north/south of each other. Actually, the neighbor's house is a little northwest. The So the shadows are longer in the morning, but much of them don't fall on the neighbor's property, with the neighbor's own house and tree also shading the front and backyards. In the afternoon, the shadow mostly misses the neighbor's house.

If you want a sort of "worst-case" photo on the shadows, it's around noon in the winter. A little after so the shadow casts on the front yard and the sun is a little lower, but not so late that the trees block the sun (or for the shadow's direction to shift out of the yard).

The U.S. recognizes no property right to sunlight or views. That the building casts a shadow on her property is legally irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

And?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

He clearly made quite a few “mistakes” if it makes you feel better to call them mistakes. Maybe the biggest mistake is not having a proper land survey done prior to construction and not building the structure exactly as it was originally approved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

And?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 obviously not a criminal proceeding, but negligence can be a crime in certain situations. The standard can be connected to whether the person knew or should have known that an action can have certain results.

It’s difficult to understand how an engineer, of all people, neglected to have a survey done before beginning construction. Engineers in general tend to be known as super cautious, check and double check, and then check again type people.

There are several engineers, of different types, in my family and in my circle of acquaintances. The ones I’ve talked to about this are surprised that any engineer, of any kind, would “forget” to have a survey done, let alone plan from the beginning to construct an additional of this very large size without a survey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

And?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

He clearly made quite a few “mistakes” if it makes you feel better to call them mistakes. Maybe the biggest mistake is not having a proper land survey done prior to construction and not building the structure exactly as it was originally approved.

You haven't built many houses if you think any deviations from the initial plan is a horrible mistake. In the case of the garage, the mistake was not submitting a revised plan, particularly since it sounds like there may have been other changes. But it isn't uncommon to file those after the fact.

The lack of a survey was a big mistake. Though, I don't know the full context, and I doubt you do, either. Based on street view photos, it looks like the fence existed between the properties when 4208 didn't have a full fence (but 4210 did). He may have had a reasonably good reason to think the fence was either on the property line or perhaps even slightly on his property. It further looks like the neighbors did complain when they put up planters back there against the fence, further suggesting they were both under the impression the fence was on the line.

I still think it was a big mistake to start a controversial project so close to the setback line without a survey. But I think it's an understandable mistake. Unless you're from the DMV, I don't think you expect people to try to blow something up over a such a short distance. And I also strongly suspect he underestimated how much people would dislike the addition.

So I think he figured the fence ought to be close, and the 6 inches gave some wiggle room, so a survey probably felt like a bureaucratic waste of money where there was no practical issue. But it turns out the fence was off by more than expected, the hatred of the addition was strong.

[Anonymous]

Everyone knows a fence line does NOT equal a property line.

Homeowners and surveyors typically recommend building a fence just inside the property line so it’s clear who owns the land the fence sits on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

And?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

He clearly made quite a few “mistakes” if it makes you feel better to call them mistakes. Maybe the biggest mistake is not having a proper land survey done prior to construction and not building the structure exactly as it was originally approved.

You haven't built many houses if you think any deviations from the initial plan is a horrible mistake. In the case of the garage, the mistake was not submitting a revised plan, particularly since it sounds like there may have been other changes. But it isn't uncommon to file those after the fact.

The lack of a survey was a big mistake. Though, I don't know the full context, and I doubt you do, either. Based on street view photos, it looks like the fence existed between the properties when 4208 didn't have a full fence (but 4210 did). He may have had a reasonably good reason to think the fence was either on the property line or perhaps even slightly on his property. It further looks like the neighbors did complain when they put up planters back there against the fence, further suggesting they were both under the impression the fence was on the line.

I still think it was a big mistake to start a controversial project so close to the setback line without a survey. But I think it's an understandable mistake. Unless you're from the DMV, I don't think you expect people to try to blow something up over a such a short distance. And I also strongly suspect he underestimated how much people would dislike the addition.

So I think he figured the fence ought to be close, and the 6 inches gave some wiggle room, so a survey probably felt like a bureaucratic waste of money where there was no practical issue. But it turns out the fence was off by more than expected, the hatred of the addition was strong.

So you’re confirming that his biggest mistake was not hiring a professional to ensure that things were handled properly. Professionals know to never assume fence lines are proper indicators of where property lines are.

People are outraged because the entire scope and construction of the addition is horrendous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

And?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

He clearly made quite a few “mistakes” if it makes you feel better to call them mistakes. Maybe the biggest mistake is not having a proper land survey done prior to construction and not building the structure exactly as it was originally approved.

You haven't built many houses if you think any deviations from the initial plan is a horrible mistake. In the case of the garage, the mistake was not submitting a revised plan, particularly since it sounds like there may have been other changes. But it isn't uncommon to file those after the fact.

The lack of a survey was a big mistake. Though, I don't know the full context, and I doubt you do, either. Based on street view photos, it looks like the fence existed between the properties when 4208 didn't have a full fence (but 4210 did). He may have had a reasonably good reason to think the fence was either on the property line or perhaps even slightly on his property. It further looks like the neighbors did complain when they put up planters back there against the fence, further suggesting they were both under the impression the fence was on the line.

I still think it was a big mistake to start a controversial project so close to the setback line without a survey. But I think it's an understandable mistake. Unless you're from the DMV, I don't think you expect people to try to blow something up over a such a short distance. And I also strongly suspect he underestimated how much people would dislike the addition.

So I think he figured the fence ought to be close, and the 6 inches gave some wiggle room, so a survey probably felt like a bureaucratic waste of money where there was no practical issue. But it turns out the fence was off by more than expected, the hatred of the addition was strong.

It makes no difference whatsoever how long the fence was in place. A fence is not a property line. Anyone who owns a home knows this. You don’t even have to be an engineer to know this. There is no “reasonably good reason” to think a fence is a property line.

Was not getting a survey done motivated by sloppiness or cheapness? Either way, it was ridiculous to not get a survey done before building a structure of this size. And for someone with the background and training to be an engineer, it’s particularly egregious.