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:

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.

The permit is for 6 toilets, 8 sinks, 6 showers...

And? You've never seen a house with a bathroom off each bedroom? It's admittedly more common with higher end builds, but it isn't wild. And it certainly doesn't make them apartments.

How many kitchens? Living spaces?

Your continued reference to "apartments" is just a dog whistle for your underlying problem with this home(owner).

Don't be obtuse. That amount of plumbing would typically be found in a 10k SF build, which this is not. Is the plumbing infrastructure going to and from the house even set up to handle that amount of usage?

The fact that you seem to honestly believe this is... wild.

No, it isn't an apartment. Anyone capable of managing their emotions should have no difficulty seeing that. This is obviously being built for his family. It is not laid out as apartments. There's absolutely no indication wants to rent any rooms out, or flip the house to someone who will. There's obviously a very challenging family situation that has brought them together, and a family that size needs more room.

There's nothing wild about questioning having 6 full bathrooms (2 per floor) in this addition, Mike. It's not typical around here, even for larger mansions.

And aren’t the six bedrooms and bathrooms in addition to the four bedrooms and 2 1/2 bathrooms in the main house? That’s a lot of beds and baths for an SFH in a suburban neighborhood of three and four bedroom houses.

They had to remove part of the house to build the addition.

Where did the 6 bedrooms come from? Are floor plans posted somewhere?

There are six toilets, six showers, eight bathroom type sinks listed on the plumbing inspection. The typical house with this many toilets and showers has how many bedrooms?

In my suburban neighborhood, a lot of houses have three toilets and two or three showers/tubs and they have four bedrooms. I’d say that’s a pretty common bathroom to bedroom ratio.

They might be swapping things out in existing bathrooms, too.

You're certainly right that it would be unusual to have dedicated bathrooms for each bedroom in a home in this price range, but most homes aren't built specifically for a multi-generational family. That certainly doesn't make this an apartment building.

The description on the permit says "New plumbing and gas plumbing for SFD." So yes, that's 6 new full bathrooms in the addition alone. Why would they add so many full bathrooms without a corresponding bedroom? Usually there's more bedrooms than full baths so a 1:1 ratio (or 6 bedrooms for 6 bathrooms) assumption is on the low end. Maybe there's 8 bedrooms for all I know with some of the bathrooms serving as Jack and Jill style.

[Anonymous]

I used to live in a Leavitt cape cod in Bowie a lifetime ago. Two beds upstairs sharing a hall bathroom, two bedrooms on the main level sharing a full bath with the rest of the house. Eat in kitchen and living room. Mine was slab built, no basement. They aren’t spacious but they’re manageable.

I didn’t realize the permit had six more bathrooms! This guy is definitely building himself a three unit apartment building with two bedrooms each.

Where are the occupants of a ten bedroom home going to park? Ten bedrooms could equal 20 people. This just gets better and better!

[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:

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.

The permit is for 6 toilets, 8 sinks, 6 showers...

And? You've never seen a house with a bathroom off each bedroom? It's admittedly more common with higher end builds, but it isn't wild. And it certainly doesn't make them apartments.

How many kitchens? Living spaces?

Your continued reference to "apartments" is just a dog whistle for your underlying problem with this home(owner).

Don't be obtuse. That amount of plumbing would typically be found in a 10k SF build, which this is not. Is the plumbing infrastructure going to and from the house even set up to handle that amount of usage?

The fact that you seem to honestly believe this is... wild.

No, it isn't an apartment. Anyone capable of managing their emotions should have no difficulty seeing that. This is obviously being built for his family. It is not laid out as apartments. There's absolutely no indication wants to rent any rooms out, or flip the house to someone who will. There's obviously a very challenging family situation that has brought them together, and a family that size needs more room.

There's nothing wild about questioning having 6 full bathrooms (2 per floor) in this addition, Mike. It's not typical around here, even for larger mansions.

And aren’t the six bedrooms and bathrooms in addition to the four bedrooms and 2 1/2 bathrooms in the main house? That’s a lot of beds and baths for an SFH in a suburban neighborhood of three and four bedroom houses.

They had to remove part of the house to build the addition.

Where did the 6 bedrooms come from? Are floor plans posted somewhere?

There are six toilets, six showers, eight bathroom type sinks listed on the plumbing inspection. The typical house with this many toilets and showers has how many bedrooms?

In my suburban neighborhood, a lot of houses have three toilets and two or three showers/tubs and they have four bedrooms. I’d say that’s a pretty common bathroom to bedroom ratio.

They might be swapping things out in existing bathrooms, too.

You're certainly right that it would be unusual to have dedicated bathrooms for each bedroom in a home in this price range, but most homes aren't built specifically for a multi-generational family. That certainly doesn't make this an apartment building.

The description on the permit says "New plumbing and gas plumbing for SFD." So yes, that's 6 new full bathrooms in the addition alone. Why would they add so many full bathrooms without a corresponding bedroom? Usually there's more bedrooms than full baths so a 1:1 ratio (or 6 bedrooms for 6 bathrooms) assumption is on the low end. Maybe there's 8 bedrooms for all I know with some of the bathrooms serving as Jack and Jill style.

OK, so the 6-bedroom number is an estimate based on the toilet number?

I'm even more curious about the layout now. It doesn't seem like it could get to 6 with two bedrooms per floor because the main level needs a kitchen. And ostensibly it should still have a garage on those plans. Fitting three bedrooms and bathrooms doesn't seem possible. You'd lose a ton of space by needing a hallway.

I still think it must include new plumbing in the old section of the house.

[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.

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.

The permit is for 6 toilets, 8 sinks, 6 showers...

And? You've never seen a house with a bathroom off each bedroom? It's admittedly more common with higher end builds, but it isn't wild. And it certainly doesn't make them apartments.

How many kitchens? Living spaces?

Your continued reference to "apartments" is just a dog whistle for your underlying problem with this home(owner).

Don't be obtuse. That amount of plumbing would typically be found in a 10k SF build, which this is not. Is the plumbing infrastructure going to and from the house even set up to handle that amount of usage?

The fact that you seem to honestly believe this is... wild.

No, it isn't an apartment. Anyone capable of managing their emotions should have no difficulty seeing that. This is obviously being built for his family. It is not laid out as apartments. There's absolutely no indication wants to rent any rooms out, or flip the house to someone who will. There's obviously a very challenging family situation that has brought them together, and a family that size needs more room.

Sorry.

I have no emotions or investment in the outcome of this project.

It definitely looks like a 3 apartment complex to me, with 2 full bathrooms on each floor, plus 2 additional sinks for the kitchens.

This is pre switching the garage to the 3rd apartment unit. It would be interesting to see if they are plumbing for a 3rd kitchen sink on that former garage level since they tried to add in a 3rd apartment unit on that level which wasn't on the original plans

[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:

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.

The permit is for 6 toilets, 8 sinks, 6 showers...

And? You've never seen a house with a bathroom off each bedroom? It's admittedly more common with higher end builds, but it isn't wild. And it certainly doesn't make them apartments.

How many kitchens? Living spaces?

Your continued reference to "apartments" is just a dog whistle for your underlying problem with this home(owner).

Don't be obtuse. That amount of plumbing would typically be found in a 10k SF build, which this is not. Is the plumbing infrastructure going to and from the house even set up to handle that amount of usage?

The fact that you seem to honestly believe this is... wild.

No, it isn't an apartment. Anyone capable of managing their emotions should have no difficulty seeing that. This is obviously being built for his family. It is not laid out as apartments. There's absolutely no indication wants to rent any rooms out, or flip the house to someone who will. There's obviously a very challenging family situation that has brought them together, and a family that size needs more room.

Sorry.

I have no emotions or investment in the outcome of this project.

It definitely looks like a 3 apartment complex to me, with 2 full bathrooms on each floor, plus 2 additional sinks for the kitchens.

This is pre switching the garage to the 3rd apartment unit. It would be interesting to see if they are plumbing for a 3rd kitchen sink on that former garage level since they tried to add in a 3rd apartment unit on that level which wasn't on the original plans

No, the eight sinks are all listed as bathroom sinks, with an additional kitchen sink. Plus, washer, dishwasher, and ice maker. And an outdoor hose hook up. So, nine total sinks.

[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:

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.

The permit is for 6 toilets, 8 sinks, 6 showers...

And? You've never seen a house with a bathroom off each bedroom? It's admittedly more common with higher end builds, but it isn't wild. And it certainly doesn't make them apartments.

How many kitchens? Living spaces?

Your continued reference to "apartments" is just a dog whistle for your underlying problem with this home(owner).

Don't be obtuse. That amount of plumbing would typically be found in a 10k SF build, which this is not. Is the plumbing infrastructure going to and from the house even set up to handle that amount of usage?

The fact that you seem to honestly believe this is... wild.

No, it isn't an apartment. Anyone capable of managing their emotions should have no difficulty seeing that. This is obviously being built for his family. It is not laid out as apartments. There's absolutely no indication wants to rent any rooms out, or flip the house to someone who will. There's obviously a very challenging family situation that has brought them together, and a family that size needs more room.

Sorry.

I have no emotions or investment in the outcome of this project.

It definitely looks like a 3 apartment complex to me, with 2 full bathrooms on each floor, plus 2 additional sinks for the kitchens.

This is pre switching the garage to the 3rd apartment unit. It would be interesting to see if they are plumbing for a 3rd kitchen sink on that former garage level since they tried to add in a 3rd apartment unit on that level which wasn't on the original plans

The permit says the kitchen is being removed from the old part of the house. Do you think you're going to hide kitchens during the inspections?

As for sinks, I would guess they're creating two master bathrooms with double vanities.

[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:

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.

The permit is for 6 toilets, 8 sinks, 6 showers...

And? You've never seen a house with a bathroom off each bedroom? It's admittedly more common with higher end builds, but it isn't wild. And it certainly doesn't make them apartments.

How many kitchens? Living spaces?

Your continued reference to "apartments" is just a dog whistle for your underlying problem with this home(owner).

Don't be obtuse. That amount of plumbing would typically be found in a 10k SF build, which this is not. Is the plumbing infrastructure going to and from the house even set up to handle that amount of usage?

The fact that you seem to honestly believe this is... wild.

No, it isn't an apartment. Anyone capable of managing their emotions should have no difficulty seeing that. This is obviously being built for his family. It is not laid out as apartments. There's absolutely no indication wants to rent any rooms out, or flip the house to someone who will. There's obviously a very challenging family situation that has brought them together, and a family that size needs more room.

Sorry.

I have no emotions or investment in the outcome of this project.

It definitely looks like a 3 apartment complex to me, with 2 full bathrooms on each floor, plus 2 additional sinks for the kitchens.

This is pre switching the garage to the 3rd apartment unit. It would be interesting to see if they are plumbing for a 3rd kitchen sink on that former garage level since they tried to add in a 3rd apartment unit on that level which wasn't on the original plans

The permit says the kitchen is being removed from the old part of the house. Do you think you're going to hide kitchens during the inspections?

As for sinks, I would guess they're creating two master bathrooms with double vanities.

With 6 showers and 6 toilets, I assume 4 bathrooms have 1 sink, 1 toilet, 1 shower, and 2 bathrooms have 2 sinks, 1 toilet, 1 shower.

[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:

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.

The permit is for 6 toilets, 8 sinks, 6 showers...

And? You've never seen a house with a bathroom off each bedroom? It's admittedly more common with higher end builds, but it isn't wild. And it certainly doesn't make them apartments.

How many kitchens? Living spaces?

Your continued reference to "apartments" is just a dog whistle for your underlying problem with this home(owner).

Don't be obtuse. That amount of plumbing would typically be found in a 10k SF build, which this is not. Is the plumbing infrastructure going to and from the house even set up to handle that amount of usage?

The fact that you seem to honestly believe this is... wild.

No, it isn't an apartment. Anyone capable of managing their emotions should have no difficulty seeing that. This is obviously being built for his family. It is not laid out as apartments. There's absolutely no indication wants to rent any rooms out, or flip the house to someone who will. There's obviously a very challenging family situation that has brought them together, and a family that size needs more room.

Sorry.

I have no emotions or investment in the outcome of this project.

It definitely looks like a 3 apartment complex to me, with 2 full bathrooms on each floor, plus 2 additional sinks for the kitchens.

This is pre switching the garage to the 3rd apartment unit. It would be interesting to see if they are plumbing for a 3rd kitchen sink on that former garage level since they tried to add in a 3rd apartment unit on that level which wasn't on the original plans

The permit says the kitchen is being removed from the old part of the house. Do you think you're going to hide kitchens during the inspections?

As for sinks, I would guess they're creating two master bathrooms with double vanities.

Just because someone says they’re removing a kitchen doesn’t mean they actually will. Just like saying you’re going to build a garage doesn’t mean you actually will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m Asian. While this addition may be 100% legal, just don’t agree with doing this to the neighbors (and the neighborhood in general). Really feeling sorry for that woman next door. Sadly this is where HOAs are appreciated.

HOAs only sub for what municipalities are supposed to do, except HOAs are money making ventures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m Asian. While this addition may be 100% legal, just don’t agree with doing this to the neighbors (and the neighborhood in general). Really feeling sorry for that woman next door. Sadly this is where HOAs are appreciated.

HOAs only sub for what municipalities are supposed to do, except HOAs are money making ventures.

I've never heard of a municipality doing the kinds of design reviews that HOAs do.

But kind of. HOAs are sort of like local government without the transparency, oversight, competency, and rule of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m Asian. While this addition may be 100% legal, just don’t agree with doing this to the neighbors (and the neighborhood in general). Really feeling sorry for that woman next door. Sadly this is where HOAs are appreciated.

HOAs only sub for what municipalities are supposed to do, except HOAs are money making ventures.

I've never heard of a municipality doing the kinds of design reviews that HOAs do.

But kind of. HOAs are sort of like local government without the transparency, oversight, competency, and rule of law.

There’s a lot to be said for not having a three story tower that looks like an Econolodge going up on your street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m Asian. While this addition may be 100% legal, just don’t agree with doing this to the neighbors (and the neighborhood in general). Really feeling sorry for that woman next door. Sadly this is where HOAs are appreciated.

HOAs only sub for what municipalities are supposed to do, except HOAs are money making ventures.

I've never heard of a municipality doing the kinds of design reviews that HOAs do.

But kind of. HOAs are sort of like local government without the transparency, oversight, competency, and rule of law.

There’s a lot to be said for not having a three story tower that looks like an Econolodge going up on your street.

I'd take the Econolodge over the rule of Karens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m Asian. While this addition may be 100% legal, just don’t agree with doing this to the neighbors (and the neighborhood in general). Really feeling sorry for that woman next door. Sadly this is where HOAs are appreciated.

HOAs only sub for what municipalities are supposed to do, except HOAs are money making ventures.

I've never heard of a municipality doing the kinds of design reviews that HOAs do.

But kind of. HOAs are sort of like local government without the transparency, oversight, competency, and rule of law.

There’s a lot to be said for not having a three story tower that looks like an Econolodge going up on your street.

I'd take the Econolodge over the rule of Karens.

And that is your right. Have at it. The value of your property will suffer for it, but if you’re okay with that, enjoy!

[Anonymous]

The original complaints to the county were because neighbors were trying to figure out if this was allowable under zoning/code.

It was run up the chain and the county just kept saying that it was approved. Pat Herrity was contacted and media was contacted when it appeared that the county hadn’t really bothered with inspections and such.

Pat Herrity then took the possibility of zoning changes to the Board around the time the media came out to shoot the story. When the county actually came out to do inspections (due to the publicity this was about to get), that is when the setback issue was found.

Look, if it’s actually allowed under zoning/codes, there is little that the neighborhood can do other than work to try to change those so something this insane doesn’t go up in the future anywhere else.

Whatever happens from this point forward is on the county.

When Mike was interviewed, he said something about an office and playroom, just more space is what he claimed this was. Then the document showing this addition has 6 br and 6 ba showed up on this site. He’s lying. It looks like a motel because that is essentially what it is. Maybe it is for cramming as many family members as possible into the space, but don’t try to convince me that it’s just some extra “living space”. And yes, if that many people are living in that house, parking on that already narrow street is going to be a nightmare.

We have 2 Ashley models on either side of our house. Yes, they are pretty tiny (1500 sf), but they do contain 4 br and 2 ba. Most of the house is essentially bedrooms -2 on the ground level along with a full bath, a living room and an eat in kitchen. The 2 other bedrooms are upstairs, along with an additional bath. The upstairs is impacted by the roof, so it feels tight up there. We looked at a couple Ashleys when we were house hunting and decided to go with a larger colonial model. Our model is around 2200 sf and has decent sized bedrooms and other living spaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The original complaints to the county were because neighbors were trying to figure out if this was allowable under zoning/code.

It was run up the chain and the county just kept saying that it was approved. Pat Herrity was contacted and media was contacted when it appeared that the county hadn’t really bothered with inspections and such.

Pat Herrity then took the possibility of zoning changes to the Board around the time the media came out to shoot the story. When the county actually came out to do inspections (due to the publicity this was about to get), that is when the setback issue was found.

Look, if it’s actually allowed under zoning/codes, there is little that the neighborhood can do other than work to try to change those so something this insane doesn’t go up in the future anywhere else.

Whatever happens from this point forward is on the county.

When Mike was interviewed, he said something about an office and playroom, just more space is what he claimed this was. Then the document showing this addition has 6 br and 6 ba showed up on this site. He’s lying. It looks like a motel because that is essentially what it is. Maybe it is for cramming as many family members as possible into the space, but don’t try to convince me that it’s just some extra “living space”. And yes, if that many people are living in that house, parking on that already narrow street is going to be a nightmare.

We have 2 Ashley models on either side of our house. Yes, they are pretty tiny (1500 sf), but they do contain 4 br and 2 ba. Most of the house is essentially bedrooms -2 on the ground level along with a full bath, a living room and an eat in kitchen. The 2 other bedrooms are upstairs, along with an additional bath. The upstairs is impacted by the roof, so it feels tight up there. We looked at a couple Ashleys when we were house hunting and decided to go with a larger colonial model. Our model is around 2200 sf and has decent sized bedrooms and other living spaces.

Oddly, those original complaints didn't bring up the side setback. They brought up the front and back setbacks, which seem to be fine, but not the side one. So it sounds like Courtney also thought the fence line was the property line.

The other complaints brought up the same ridiculous "multi-family" and "apartment" accusations that people have repeated here, almost certainly racially motivated.

Where is this "document" you say shows "6 br and 6 ba"? The closest thing I've seen is the plumbing permit showing 6 toilets and 6 showers, possibly just in the addition or possibly with modifications to the existing bathrooms. I remain skeptical that you can come up with a layout for an addition that narrow that includes the kitchen and 6br/6ba.

From your own description, the house doesn't sound very functional for a family that size. Small, cramped bedrooms, half having sloped ceilings and minimal windows. Limited common living space. Even if this addition does add 6 bedrooms, which I doubt, it wouldn't sound crazy to me to want to replace all the bedrooms in that house.

Though, it seems like a more practical layout would the kitchen and either a family room or office on the first level, and 2 bedrooms on each of the second and third floors. Keep the bedrooms on the original main level, and use the upstairs as a play room.