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:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Surely you knew there wasn't an HOA when you bought the home.

Yes, we knew there was no HOA. And?

Then you knew you couldn't control what other people would build.

Most in this neighborhood didn’t realize that the county zoning office would approve a monstrosity like this. What everyday citizen gets deep into zoning to figure out that the county would allow a 3 story Motor Lodge to be attached to modest cape cod?

Are you saying you were oblivious to basic zoning requirements? Or that you expected the county to illegally deny a permit for a legal addition? It is troubling either way, but I'm curious.

It’s troubling that someone just going along in life doesn’t spend hours thinking about the outer limits of what county zoning might allow?

No, we honestly didn’t realize. We’re not asking them to deny legal additions. If this is within the rules, there isn’t much to be done. The only move any of can make moving forward is to try to work with county officials to change things moving forward.

You're surprised someone might want to build something at the maximum allowable height? Or it isn't something you cared enough about to make it an issue?

Pretty crappy of you to later decide it is important after someone spent $100k on their home.

If there was a substantive violation, that would be one thing. But you've just been looking for a technicality to kill it. And I think that's an awful thing to do to a family.

It also isn’t very nice for someone to figure out the maximum limits of a structure that can be legally built and then technically follow those limits without any thought at all for how the structure would look and how it would affect the neighbors. It isn’t very nice to do something that will make it harder for everyone on this block to sell their homes someday and then they’ll only be able to sell for less than they could have had this structure never been built. It isn’t very nice to think only about oneself and not care about how one’s actions will affect others.

And to be surprised when those you are harming have the nerve to ask questions about what you’re doing- well, that pretty much takes the cake.

They knew what the structure looked like and liked it. That's why they built it. While you may think it's rude to build without consulting with the neighbors, it's definitely not required and shouldn't be expected. What would happen if the neighbor said, "We want you to cut off the top floor." Mike would then say, "But we want/need all those bedrooms?" Then the neighbor said, "But it's uglier that way." How would this be resolved?

It really sounds like the neighbors want the addition to be done more tastefully and expensively. If that's what the neighbors want, they should chip in to fund the difference. Apparently, it would benefit the neighbors, too, and the homeowner is fine with how the existing structure looks so doesn't really benefit.

No, the neighbors would probably prefer that the owners here didn’t take an action that will harm everyone on the street by reducing the value of their homes.

I don’t live in this neighborhood, but I live in one that is similar. We have a very nice community of people who help their neighbors and have an interest in living in a pleasant neighborhood to raise their kids and, yes, everyone would like their property values to increase over time. Sometimes the economy is bad and values decrease, everyone knows that. But it would be rightfully upsetting to anyone if their property value went down because one owner decided to do something to his property that lowered his own and everyone else’s property values.

I imagine this homeowner would not have been happy if someone on his street did something that would make his home worth less than it would have been worth when it’s time to sell, or even take a loan on the house to finance improvements.

This is part of why your home should never be treated as an investment. Many things impact property values that are entirely outside of your control. Lots of risk, and it's important to accept that. There's undeveloped land that is being sold to a commercial developer within eyeshot of my house. Previously it was a wooded area. That sucks for me, but I have zero right to that land. It was zoned commercial, and I have no basis for demanding that the property owner not develop it. Property all around you can change at any time. And it often isn't in a way you live. You have to deal with other people having property rights too. And, unfortunately, we don't have any right to our property values being preserved or going up.

It’s nice that for some people losing money on a house doesn’t matter because they were so smart as to never treat their home as an investment. For many hard working middle class people, getting less than what they might have when they sell their home can make a difference for their futures. And confronted with that possibility, you certainly can’t blame them for asking questions.

The homeowners building the addition will also see a decrease in their potential property value, but since they were making the choices and decisions about what they were building, they were able to take that into account and decide that they were okay with that. The other homeowners on the block obviously had no say, so they are dealing with a situation that has been thrust upon them.

The irony is that this family says they are building this to take care of elderly parents. Others on the block might end up with less for their own care when they are elderly because of this project.

They're not just "asking questions."

[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:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Surely you knew there wasn't an HOA when you bought the home.

Yes, we knew there was no HOA. And?

Then you knew you couldn't control what other people would build.

Most in this neighborhood didn’t realize that the county zoning office would approve a monstrosity like this. What everyday citizen gets deep into zoning to figure out that the county would allow a 3 story Motor Lodge to be attached to modest cape cod?

Are you saying you were oblivious to basic zoning requirements? Or that you expected the county to illegally deny a permit for a legal addition? It is troubling either way, but I'm curious.

It’s troubling that someone just going along in life doesn’t spend hours thinking about the outer limits of what county zoning might allow?

No, we honestly didn’t realize. We’re not asking them to deny legal additions. If this is within the rules, there isn’t much to be done. The only move any of can make moving forward is to try to work with county officials to change things moving forward.

You're surprised someone might want to build something at the maximum allowable height? Or it isn't something you cared enough about to make it an issue?

Pretty crappy of you to later decide it is important after someone spent $100k on their home.

If there was a substantive violation, that would be one thing. But you've just been looking for a technicality to kill it. And I think that's an awful thing to do to a family.

It also isn’t very nice for someone to figure out the maximum limits of a structure that can be legally built and then technically follow those limits without any thought at all for how the structure would look and how it would affect the neighbors. It isn’t very nice to do something that will make it harder for everyone on this block to sell their homes someday and then they’ll only be able to sell for less than they could have had this structure never been built. It isn’t very nice to think only about oneself and not care about how one’s actions will affect others.

And to be surprised when those you are harming have the nerve to ask questions about what you’re doing- well, that pretty much takes the cake.

They knew what the structure looked like and liked it. That's why they built it. While you may think it's rude to build without consulting with the neighbors, it's definitely not required and shouldn't be expected. What would happen if the neighbor said, "We want you to cut off the top floor." Mike would then say, "But we want/need all those bedrooms?" Then the neighbor said, "But it's uglier that way." How would this be resolved?

It really sounds like the neighbors want the addition to be done more tastefully and expensively. If that's what the neighbors want, they should chip in to fund the difference. Apparently, it would benefit the neighbors, too, and the homeowner is fine with how the existing structure looks so doesn't really benefit.

No, the neighbors would probably prefer that the owners here didn’t take an action that will harm everyone on the street by reducing the value of their homes.

I don’t live in this neighborhood, but I live in one that is similar. We have a very nice community of people who help their neighbors and have an interest in living in a pleasant neighborhood to raise their kids and, yes, everyone would like their property values to increase over time. Sometimes the economy is bad and values decrease, everyone knows that. But it would be rightfully upsetting to anyone if their property value went down because one owner decided to do something to his property that lowered his own and everyone else’s property values.

I imagine this homeowner would not have been happy if someone on his street did something that would make his home worth less than it would have been worth when it’s time to sell, or even take a loan on the house to finance improvements.

This is part of why your home should never be treated as an investment. Many things impact property values that are entirely outside of your control. Lots of risk, and it's important to accept that. There's undeveloped land that is being sold to a commercial developer within eyeshot of my house. Previously it was a wooded area. That sucks for me, but I have zero right to that land. It was zoned commercial, and I have no basis for demanding that the property owner not develop it. Property all around you can change at any time. And it often isn't in a way you live. You have to deal with other people having property rights too. And, unfortunately, we don't have any right to our property values being preserved or going up.

It’s nice that for some people losing money on a house doesn’t matter because they were so smart as to never treat their home as an investment. For many hard working middle class people, getting less than what they might have when they sell their home can make a difference for their futures. And confronted with that possibility, you certainly can’t blame them for asking questions.

The homeowners building the addition will also see a decrease in their potential property value, but since they were making the choices and decisions about what they were building, they were able to take that into account and decide that they were okay with that. The other homeowners on the block obviously had no say, so they are dealing with a situation that has been thrust upon them.

The irony is that this family says they are building this to take care of elderly parents. Others on the block might end up with less for their own care when they are elderly because of this project.

Zero percent chance the owners get less than they paid for the house. Will they make back the money spent on the addition? Most don’t in the short-term. Maybe they don’t view their primary home as an investment either.

Understanding property owners’ rights with their own land has nothing to do with being rich. I borrowed max against my retirement accounts and walked dogs to afford the down payment on my first and only house that I purchased two years ago (at the top of the market!). But I have full understanding that I don’t own the land around me and that because I don’t live in an HOA, my neighbors can do what they want. One neighbor has missing shutters, peeling paint, house painted different colors, a cracked sewer pipe, and trash cans sitting out even though it’s a “nice neighborhood” and his house is likely worth over $1 MM. I don’t have control over that. Nor do I have control over the forested area being developed. Those are just risks you bear with home ownership. I’m sorry the Greebrier neighbors didn’t understand that.

[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:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

My point is that the neighborhood has no charm or “character” to begin with, so there’s nothing really to preserve. To clear, I don’t think the argument is a valid one either way. People who don’t live in an HOA aren’t owed some coherent aesthetic. And people definitely aren’t entitled to “uncrowded” neighborhoods.

I don’t think you understand what the zoning board means by referring to the character of a community. They’re not talking about charm. It refers to a sense of continuity and cohesiveness and whether a proposed project fits into a neighborhood in the same way other structures do. It has to do with a proposed structure not being of a totally different character than what is already there.

And, yes, the requirements for two off street parking spaces do go to how “crowded” a neighborhood can be. Suburban neighborhood streets are not super wide, and can be narrow. More cars parked on the streets can make it more difficult for two cars to pass each other safely. They can also make it less safe for children crossing streets, riding bikes, or even just playing in the street.

Zoning is about land use, not about aesthetics. Even accepting what you're saying as true, Fairfax County zoning laws consider three-story rectangular additions used for residential purposes sufficiently cohesive. This property satisfies parking minimums, so no right to challenge. There aren't resident minimums for a family related by blood/marriage, so the parking minimums aren't about "crowds."

Zoning used to be solely about land use. That's no longer the case. You are living in the past.

Do you dispute that three-floor, rectangular box addition six inches narrower than this person's would comply with all FFX county zoning ordinances despite not having the same "character" as the rest of the neighborhood?

Apparently, it's impossible to build that rectangular box without violating the setbacks. That's why we are here.

Do you have a cite for that? You're saying identical structure 6 inches narrower cannot be structurally sound and comply with relevant ordinances/codes?

There's no evidence of your proposed structure. Draw up some plans, and I will take a look.

So you have no basis for asserting that the addition can't be built without violating the setbacks? Other than that others on this thread have apparently said that?

Speculation by others does not constitue a set of drawings that don't violate a setback.

[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:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Surely you knew there wasn't an HOA when you bought the home.

Yes, we knew there was no HOA. And?

Then you knew you couldn't control what other people would build.

Most in this neighborhood didn’t realize that the county zoning office would approve a monstrosity like this. What everyday citizen gets deep into zoning to figure out that the county would allow a 3 story Motor Lodge to be attached to modest cape cod?

Are you saying you were oblivious to basic zoning requirements? Or that you expected the county to illegally deny a permit for a legal addition? It is troubling either way, but I'm curious.

It’s troubling that someone just going along in life doesn’t spend hours thinking about the outer limits of what county zoning might allow?

No, we honestly didn’t realize. We’re not asking them to deny legal additions. If this is within the rules, there isn’t much to be done. The only move any of can make moving forward is to try to work with county officials to change things moving forward.

You're surprised someone might want to build something at the maximum allowable height? Or it isn't something you cared enough about to make it an issue?

Pretty crappy of you to later decide it is important after someone spent $100k on their home.

If there was a substantive violation, that would be one thing. But you've just been looking for a technicality to kill it. And I think that's an awful thing to do to a family.

It also isn’t very nice for someone to figure out the maximum limits of a structure that can be legally built and then technically follow those limits without any thought at all for how the structure would look and how it would affect the neighbors. It isn’t very nice to do something that will make it harder for everyone on this block to sell their homes someday and then they’ll only be able to sell for less than they could have had this structure never been built. It isn’t very nice to think only about oneself and not care about how one’s actions will affect others.

And to be surprised when those you are harming have the nerve to ask questions about what you’re doing- well, that pretty much takes the cake.

They knew what the structure looked like and liked it. That's why they built it. While you may think it's rude to build without consulting with the neighbors, it's definitely not required and shouldn't be expected. What would happen if the neighbor said, "We want you to cut off the top floor." Mike would then say, "But we want/need all those bedrooms?" Then the neighbor said, "But it's uglier that way." How would this be resolved?

It really sounds like the neighbors want the addition to be done more tastefully and expensively. If that's what the neighbors want, they should chip in to fund the difference. Apparently, it would benefit the neighbors, too, and the homeowner is fine with how the existing structure looks so doesn't really benefit.

No, the neighbors would probably prefer that the owners here didn’t take an action that will harm everyone on the street by reducing the value of their homes.

I don’t live in this neighborhood, but I live in one that is similar. We have a very nice community of people who help their neighbors and have an interest in living in a pleasant neighborhood to raise their kids and, yes, everyone would like their property values to increase over time. Sometimes the economy is bad and values decrease, everyone knows that. But it would be rightfully upsetting to anyone if their property value went down because one owner decided to do something to his property that lowered his own and everyone else’s property values.

I imagine this homeowner would not have been happy if someone on his street did something that would make his home worth less than it would have been worth when it’s time to sell, or even take a loan on the house to finance improvements.

There's a difference between not being "happy" and trying to find a technicality to force someone to lose $100k+ on a substantively legal addition. I don't think anyone expects the neighbors to be "happy."

Whether you care to admit it or not, your position is basically that you think he should be forced to spend substantially more- probably twice as much- for a better-looking addition, primarily for the benefit of his neighbors. That's not a reasonable expectation.

So this guy is spending 50% of what a typical addition would cost? Where is this cost “savings” coming from? It already didn’t pass the wind bracing inspection- what else has been or will be done cheaply? How do we know the thing won’t fall over in a strong breeze?

Tonight's winds are a good test

[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:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

My point is that the neighborhood has no charm or “character” to begin with, so there’s nothing really to preserve. To clear, I don’t think the argument is a valid one either way. People who don’t live in an HOA aren’t owed some coherent aesthetic. And people definitely aren’t entitled to “uncrowded” neighborhoods.

I don’t think you understand what the zoning board means by referring to the character of a community. They’re not talking about charm. It refers to a sense of continuity and cohesiveness and whether a proposed project fits into a neighborhood in the same way other structures do. It has to do with a proposed structure not being of a totally different character than what is already there.

And, yes, the requirements for two off street parking spaces do go to how “crowded” a neighborhood can be. Suburban neighborhood streets are not super wide, and can be narrow. More cars parked on the streets can make it more difficult for two cars to pass each other safely. They can also make it less safe for children crossing streets, riding bikes, or even just playing in the street.

Zoning is about land use, not about aesthetics. Even accepting what you're saying as true, Fairfax County zoning laws consider three-story rectangular additions used for residential purposes sufficiently cohesive. This property satisfies parking minimums, so no right to challenge. There aren't resident minimums for a family related by blood/marriage, so the parking minimums aren't about "crowds."

Zoning used to be solely about land use. That's no longer the case. You are living in the past.

Do you dispute that three-floor, rectangular box addition six inches narrower than this person's would comply with all FFX county zoning ordinances despite not having the same "character" as the rest of the neighborhood?

Apparently, it's impossible to build that rectangular box without violating the setbacks. That's why we are here.

Do you have a cite for that? You're saying identical structure 6 inches narrower cannot be structurally sound and comply with relevant ordinances/codes?

There's no evidence of your proposed structure. Draw up some plans, and I will take a look.

So you have no basis for asserting that the addition can't be built without violating the setbacks? Other than that others on this thread have apparently said that?

Speculation by others does not constitue a set of drawings that don't violate a setback.

And the converse is also true. There is no reason to believe the same design couldn’t be six inches narrower.

[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:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Surely you knew there wasn't an HOA when you bought the home.

Yes, we knew there was no HOA. And?

Then you knew you couldn't control what other people would build.

Most in this neighborhood didn’t realize that the county zoning office would approve a monstrosity like this. What everyday citizen gets deep into zoning to figure out that the county would allow a 3 story Motor Lodge to be attached to modest cape cod?

Are you saying you were oblivious to basic zoning requirements? Or that you expected the county to illegally deny a permit for a legal addition? It is troubling either way, but I'm curious.

It’s troubling that someone just going along in life doesn’t spend hours thinking about the outer limits of what county zoning might allow?

No, we honestly didn’t realize. We’re not asking them to deny legal additions. If this is within the rules, there isn’t much to be done. The only move any of can make moving forward is to try to work with county officials to change things moving forward.

You're surprised someone might want to build something at the maximum allowable height? Or it isn't something you cared enough about to make it an issue?

Pretty crappy of you to later decide it is important after someone spent $100k on their home.

If there was a substantive violation, that would be one thing. But you've just been looking for a technicality to kill it. And I think that's an awful thing to do to a family.

It also isn’t very nice for someone to figure out the maximum limits of a structure that can be legally built and then technically follow those limits without any thought at all for how the structure would look and how it would affect the neighbors. It isn’t very nice to do something that will make it harder for everyone on this block to sell their homes someday and then they’ll only be able to sell for less than they could have had this structure never been built. It isn’t very nice to think only about oneself and not care about how one’s actions will affect others.

And to be surprised when those you are harming have the nerve to ask questions about what you’re doing- well, that pretty much takes the cake.

They knew what the structure looked like and liked it. That's why they built it. While you may think it's rude to build without consulting with the neighbors, it's definitely not required and shouldn't be expected. What would happen if the neighbor said, "We want you to cut off the top floor." Mike would then say, "But we want/need all those bedrooms?" Then the neighbor said, "But it's uglier that way." How would this be resolved?

It really sounds like the neighbors want the addition to be done more tastefully and expensively. If that's what the neighbors want, they should chip in to fund the difference. Apparently, it would benefit the neighbors, too, and the homeowner is fine with how the existing structure looks so doesn't really benefit.

No, the neighbors would probably prefer that the owners here didn’t take an action that will harm everyone on the street by reducing the value of their homes.

I don’t live in this neighborhood, but I live in one that is similar. We have a very nice community of people who help their neighbors and have an interest in living in a pleasant neighborhood to raise their kids and, yes, everyone would like their property values to increase over time. Sometimes the economy is bad and values decrease, everyone knows that. But it would be rightfully upsetting to anyone if their property value went down because one owner decided to do something to his property that lowered his own and everyone else’s property values.

I imagine this homeowner would not have been happy if someone on his street did something that would make his home worth less than it would have been worth when it’s time to sell, or even take a loan on the house to finance improvements.

This is part of why your home should never be treated as an investment. Many things impact property values that are entirely outside of your control. Lots of risk, and it's important to accept that. There's undeveloped land that is being sold to a commercial developer within eyeshot of my house. Previously it was a wooded area. That sucks for me, but I have zero right to that land. It was zoned commercial, and I have no basis for demanding that the property owner not develop it. Property all around you can change at any time. And it often isn't in a way you live. You have to deal with other people having property rights too. And, unfortunately, we don't have any right to our property values being preserved or going up.

It’s nice that for some people losing money on a house doesn’t matter because they were so smart as to never treat their home as an investment. For many hard working middle class people, getting less than what they might have when they sell their home can make a difference for their futures. And confronted with that possibility, you certainly can’t blame them for asking questions.

The homeowners building the addition will also see a decrease in their potential property value, but since they were making the choices and decisions about what they were building, they were able to take that into account and decide that they were okay with that. The other homeowners on the block obviously had no say, so they are dealing with a situation that has been thrust upon them.

The irony is that this family says they are building this to take care of elderly parents. Others on the block might end up with less for their own care when they are elderly because of this project.

Zero percent chance the owners get less than they paid for the house. Will they make back the money spent on the addition? Most don’t in the short-term. Maybe they don’t view their primary home as an investment either.

Understanding property owners’ rights with their own land has nothing to do with being rich. I borrowed max against my retirement accounts and walked dogs to afford the down payment on my first and only house that I purchased two years ago (at the top of the market!). But I have full understanding that I don’t own the land around me and that because I don’t live in an HOA, my neighbors can do what they want. One neighbor has missing shutters, peeling paint, house painted different colors, a cracked sewer pipe, and trash cans sitting out even though it’s a “nice neighborhood” and his house is likely worth over $1 MM. I don’t have control over that. Nor do I have control over the forested area being developed. Those are just risks you bear with home ownership. I’m sorry the Greebrier neighbors didn’t understand that.

You misunderstand the point. The post above is not saying that the homeowners would get less than they paid for the house. What is being pointed out here is that the house will sit on the market longer because there will be fewer buyers interested in a house that looks like this. With fewer interested buyers, there would be less competition on price, so the price is likely to end up not as high as it might have been had they not built this particular structure.

Also, any comparables in the neighborhood will also be lower because fewer buyers will be interested in living on this street and the ones who are willing to live there will expect a bargain price, which will result in sales prices being lower than they would have been had this particular structure not been built. Everyone on the street loses in the long run.

[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:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

My point is that the neighborhood has no charm or “character” to begin with, so there’s nothing really to preserve. To clear, I don’t think the argument is a valid one either way. People who don’t live in an HOA aren’t owed some coherent aesthetic. And people definitely aren’t entitled to “uncrowded” neighborhoods.

I don’t think you understand what the zoning board means by referring to the character of a community. They’re not talking about charm. It refers to a sense of continuity and cohesiveness and whether a proposed project fits into a neighborhood in the same way other structures do. It has to do with a proposed structure not being of a totally different character than what is already there.

And, yes, the requirements for two off street parking spaces do go to how “crowded” a neighborhood can be. Suburban neighborhood streets are not super wide, and can be narrow. More cars parked on the streets can make it more difficult for two cars to pass each other safely. They can also make it less safe for children crossing streets, riding bikes, or even just playing in the street.

Zoning is about land use, not about aesthetics. Even accepting what you're saying as true, Fairfax County zoning laws consider three-story rectangular additions used for residential purposes sufficiently cohesive. This property satisfies parking minimums, so no right to challenge. There aren't resident minimums for a family related by blood/marriage, so the parking minimums aren't about "crowds."

Zoning used to be solely about land use. That's no longer the case. You are living in the past.

Do you dispute that three-floor, rectangular box addition six inches narrower than this person's would comply with all FFX county zoning ordinances despite not having the same "character" as the rest of the neighborhood?

Apparently, it's impossible to build that rectangular box without violating the setbacks. That's why we are here.

Do you have a cite for that? You're saying identical structure 6 inches narrower cannot be structurally sound and comply with relevant ordinances/codes?

There's no evidence of your proposed structure. Draw up some plans, and I will take a look.

So you have no basis for asserting that the addition can't be built without violating the setbacks? Other than that others on this thread have apparently said that?

Speculation by others does not constitue a set of drawings that don't violate a setback.

And the converse is also true. There is no reason to believe the same design couldn’t be six inches narrower.

So, show us some drawings.

[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:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Surely you knew there wasn't an HOA when you bought the home.

Yes, we knew there was no HOA. And?

Then you knew you couldn't control what other people would build.

Most in this neighborhood didn’t realize that the county zoning office would approve a monstrosity like this. What everyday citizen gets deep into zoning to figure out that the county would allow a 3 story Motor Lodge to be attached to modest cape cod?

Are you saying you were oblivious to basic zoning requirements? Or that you expected the county to illegally deny a permit for a legal addition? It is troubling either way, but I'm curious.

It’s troubling that someone just going along in life doesn’t spend hours thinking about the outer limits of what county zoning might allow?

No, we honestly didn’t realize. We’re not asking them to deny legal additions. If this is within the rules, there isn’t much to be done. The only move any of can make moving forward is to try to work with county officials to change things moving forward.

You're surprised someone might want to build something at the maximum allowable height? Or it isn't something you cared enough about to make it an issue?

Pretty crappy of you to later decide it is important after someone spent $100k on their home.

If there was a substantive violation, that would be one thing. But you've just been looking for a technicality to kill it. And I think that's an awful thing to do to a family.

It also isn’t very nice for someone to figure out the maximum limits of a structure that can be legally built and then technically follow those limits without any thought at all for how the structure would look and how it would affect the neighbors. It isn’t very nice to do something that will make it harder for everyone on this block to sell their homes someday and then they’ll only be able to sell for less than they could have had this structure never been built. It isn’t very nice to think only about oneself and not care about how one’s actions will affect others.

And to be surprised when those you are harming have the nerve to ask questions about what you’re doing- well, that pretty much takes the cake.

They knew what the structure looked like and liked it. That's why they built it. While you may think it's rude to build without consulting with the neighbors, it's definitely not required and shouldn't be expected. What would happen if the neighbor said, "We want you to cut off the top floor." Mike would then say, "But we want/need all those bedrooms?" Then the neighbor said, "But it's uglier that way." How would this be resolved?

It really sounds like the neighbors want the addition to be done more tastefully and expensively. If that's what the neighbors want, they should chip in to fund the difference. Apparently, it would benefit the neighbors, too, and the homeowner is fine with how the existing structure looks so doesn't really benefit.

No, the neighbors would probably prefer that the owners here didn’t take an action that will harm everyone on the street by reducing the value of their homes.

I don’t live in this neighborhood, but I live in one that is similar. We have a very nice community of people who help their neighbors and have an interest in living in a pleasant neighborhood to raise their kids and, yes, everyone would like their property values to increase over time. Sometimes the economy is bad and values decrease, everyone knows that. But it would be rightfully upsetting to anyone if their property value went down because one owner decided to do something to his property that lowered his own and everyone else’s property values.

I imagine this homeowner would not have been happy if someone on his street did something that would make his home worth less than it would have been worth when it’s time to sell, or even take a loan on the house to finance improvements.

This is part of why your home should never be treated as an investment. Many things impact property values that are entirely outside of your control. Lots of risk, and it's important to accept that. There's undeveloped land that is being sold to a commercial developer within eyeshot of my house. Previously it was a wooded area. That sucks for me, but I have zero right to that land. It was zoned commercial, and I have no basis for demanding that the property owner not develop it. Property all around you can change at any time. And it often isn't in a way you live. You have to deal with other people having property rights too. And, unfortunately, we don't have any right to our property values being preserved or going up.

It’s nice that for some people losing money on a house doesn’t matter because they were so smart as to never treat their home as an investment. For many hard working middle class people, getting less than what they might have when they sell their home can make a difference for their futures. And confronted with that possibility, you certainly can’t blame them for asking questions.

The homeowners building the addition will also see a decrease in their potential property value, but since they were making the choices and decisions about what they were building, they were able to take that into account and decide that they were okay with that. The other homeowners on the block obviously had no say, so they are dealing with a situation that has been thrust upon them.

The irony is that this family says they are building this to take care of elderly parents. Others on the block might end up with less for their own care when they are elderly because of this project.

Zero percent chance the owners get less than they paid for the house. Will they make back the money spent on the addition? Most don’t in the short-term. Maybe they don’t view their primary home as an investment either.

Understanding property owners’ rights with their own land has nothing to do with being rich. I borrowed max against my retirement accounts and walked dogs to afford the down payment on my first and only house that I purchased two years ago (at the top of the market!). But I have full understanding that I don’t own the land around me and that because I don’t live in an HOA, my neighbors can do what they want. One neighbor has missing shutters, peeling paint, house painted different colors, a cracked sewer pipe, and trash cans sitting out even though it’s a “nice neighborhood” and his house is likely worth over $1 MM. I don’t have control over that. Nor do I have control over the forested area being developed. Those are just risks you bear with home ownership. I’m sorry the Greebrier neighbors didn’t understand that.

You misunderstand the point. The post above is not saying that the homeowners would get less than they paid for the house. What is being pointed out here is that the house will sit on the market longer because there will be fewer buyers interested in a house that looks like this. With fewer interested buyers, there would be less competition on price, so the price is likely to end up not as high as it might have been had they not built this particular structure.

Also, any comparables in the neighborhood will also be lower because fewer buyers will be interested in living on this street and the ones who are willing to live there will expect a bargain price, which will result in sales prices being lower than they would have been had this particular structure not been built. Everyone on the street loses in the long run.

Pure speculation. Some people might be thrilled to get that kind of square footage in a neighborhood with such great schools. Inexpensively increasing square footage is consistently the best ROI when it comes to property upgrades renovations. Can't say what it will do to other homes, but my parents had numerous ugly, massive rebuilds on their street. They sold their original cottage, which had appreciated over 300% in less than two decades and way higher than the zip code overall.

In other words, you really don't know what it will do to property values.

[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:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

My point is that the neighborhood has no charm or “character” to begin with, so there’s nothing really to preserve. To clear, I don’t think the argument is a valid one either way. People who don’t live in an HOA aren’t owed some coherent aesthetic. And people definitely aren’t entitled to “uncrowded” neighborhoods.

I don’t think you understand what the zoning board means by referring to the character of a community. They’re not talking about charm. It refers to a sense of continuity and cohesiveness and whether a proposed project fits into a neighborhood in the same way other structures do. It has to do with a proposed structure not being of a totally different character than what is already there.

And, yes, the requirements for two off street parking spaces do go to how “crowded” a neighborhood can be. Suburban neighborhood streets are not super wide, and can be narrow. More cars parked on the streets can make it more difficult for two cars to pass each other safely. They can also make it less safe for children crossing streets, riding bikes, or even just playing in the street.

Zoning is about land use, not about aesthetics. Even accepting what you're saying as true, Fairfax County zoning laws consider three-story rectangular additions used for residential purposes sufficiently cohesive. This property satisfies parking minimums, so no right to challenge. There aren't resident minimums for a family related by blood/marriage, so the parking minimums aren't about "crowds."

Zoning used to be solely about land use. That's no longer the case. You are living in the past.

Do you dispute that three-floor, rectangular box addition six inches narrower than this person's would comply with all FFX county zoning ordinances despite not having the same "character" as the rest of the neighborhood?

Apparently, it's impossible to build that rectangular box without violating the setbacks. That's why we are here.

Do you have a cite for that? You're saying identical structure 6 inches narrower cannot be structurally sound and comply with relevant ordinances/codes?

There's no evidence of your proposed structure. Draw up some plans, and I will take a look.

So you have no basis for asserting that the addition can't be built without violating the setbacks? Other than that others on this thread have apparently said that?

Speculation by others does not constitue a set of drawings that don't violate a setback.

And the converse is also true. There is no reason to believe the same design couldn’t be six inches narrower.

So, show us some drawings.

DP. I really don't know what point either one of you is arguing. Obviously the addition as planned couldn't fit behind the setback- there simply isn't enough room on the lot. But also obviously, it could have been 6-12 inches narrower. I don't know what the interior layout looks like. Conceivably they might have needed to rearrange things, but I doubt it would have taken much.

[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:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

My point is that the neighborhood has no charm or “character” to begin with, so there’s nothing really to preserve. To clear, I don’t think the argument is a valid one either way. People who don’t live in an HOA aren’t owed some coherent aesthetic. And people definitely aren’t entitled to “uncrowded” neighborhoods.

I don’t think you understand what the zoning board means by referring to the character of a community. They’re not talking about charm. It refers to a sense of continuity and cohesiveness and whether a proposed project fits into a neighborhood in the same way other structures do. It has to do with a proposed structure not being of a totally different character than what is already there.

And, yes, the requirements for two off street parking spaces do go to how “crowded” a neighborhood can be. Suburban neighborhood streets are not super wide, and can be narrow. More cars parked on the streets can make it more difficult for two cars to pass each other safely. They can also make it less safe for children crossing streets, riding bikes, or even just playing in the street.

Zoning is about land use, not about aesthetics. Even accepting what you're saying as true, Fairfax County zoning laws consider three-story rectangular additions used for residential purposes sufficiently cohesive. This property satisfies parking minimums, so no right to challenge. There aren't resident minimums for a family related by blood/marriage, so the parking minimums aren't about "crowds."

Zoning used to be solely about land use. That's no longer the case. You are living in the past.

Do you dispute that three-floor, rectangular box addition six inches narrower than this person's would comply with all FFX county zoning ordinances despite not having the same "character" as the rest of the neighborhood?

Apparently, it's impossible to build that rectangular box without violating the setbacks. That's why we are here.

Do you have a cite for that? You're saying identical structure 6 inches narrower cannot be structurally sound and comply with relevant ordinances/codes?

There's no evidence of your proposed structure. Draw up some plans, and I will take a look.

So you have no basis for asserting that the addition can't be built without violating the setbacks? Other than that others on this thread have apparently said that?

Speculation by others does not constitue a set of drawings that don't violate a setback.

And the converse is also true. There is no reason to believe the same design couldn’t be six inches narrower.

So, show us some drawings.

DP. I really don't know what point either one of you is arguing. Obviously the addition as planned couldn't fit behind the setback- there simply isn't enough room on the lot. But also obviously, it could have been 6-12 inches narrower. I don't know what the interior layout looks like. Conceivably they might have needed to rearrange things, but I doubt it would have taken much.

The person you're responding to believes that, absent drawings from an architect and engineer, it wouldn't be possible to build this addition 6-12 inches narrower.

[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:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Surely you knew there wasn't an HOA when you bought the home.

Yes, we knew there was no HOA. And?

Then you knew you couldn't control what other people would build.

Most in this neighborhood didn’t realize that the county zoning office would approve a monstrosity like this. What everyday citizen gets deep into zoning to figure out that the county would allow a 3 story Motor Lodge to be attached to modest cape cod?

Are you saying you were oblivious to basic zoning requirements? Or that you expected the county to illegally deny a permit for a legal addition? It is troubling either way, but I'm curious.

It’s troubling that someone just going along in life doesn’t spend hours thinking about the outer limits of what county zoning might allow?

No, we honestly didn’t realize. We’re not asking them to deny legal additions. If this is within the rules, there isn’t much to be done. The only move any of can make moving forward is to try to work with county officials to change things moving forward.

You're surprised someone might want to build something at the maximum allowable height? Or it isn't something you cared enough about to make it an issue?

Pretty crappy of you to later decide it is important after someone spent $100k on their home.

If there was a substantive violation, that would be one thing. But you've just been looking for a technicality to kill it. And I think that's an awful thing to do to a family.

It also isn’t very nice for someone to figure out the maximum limits of a structure that can be legally built and then technically follow those limits without any thought at all for how the structure would look and how it would affect the neighbors. It isn’t very nice to do something that will make it harder for everyone on this block to sell their homes someday and then they’ll only be able to sell for less than they could have had this structure never been built. It isn’t very nice to think only about oneself and not care about how one’s actions will affect others.

And to be surprised when those you are harming have the nerve to ask questions about what you’re doing- well, that pretty much takes the cake.

They knew what the structure looked like and liked it. That's why they built it. While you may think it's rude to build without consulting with the neighbors, it's definitely not required and shouldn't be expected. What would happen if the neighbor said, "We want you to cut off the top floor." Mike would then say, "But we want/need all those bedrooms?" Then the neighbor said, "But it's uglier that way." How would this be resolved?

It really sounds like the neighbors want the addition to be done more tastefully and expensively. If that's what the neighbors want, they should chip in to fund the difference. Apparently, it would benefit the neighbors, too, and the homeowner is fine with how the existing structure looks so doesn't really benefit.

No, the neighbors would probably prefer that the owners here didn’t take an action that will harm everyone on the street by reducing the value of their homes.

I don’t live in this neighborhood, but I live in one that is similar. We have a very nice community of people who help their neighbors and have an interest in living in a pleasant neighborhood to raise their kids and, yes, everyone would like their property values to increase over time. Sometimes the economy is bad and values decrease, everyone knows that. But it would be rightfully upsetting to anyone if their property value went down because one owner decided to do something to his property that lowered his own and everyone else’s property values.

I imagine this homeowner would not have been happy if someone on his street did something that would make his home worth less than it would have been worth when it’s time to sell, or even take a loan on the house to finance improvements.

This is part of why your home should never be treated as an investment. Many things impact property values that are entirely outside of your control. Lots of risk, and it's important to accept that. There's undeveloped land that is being sold to a commercial developer within eyeshot of my house. Previously it was a wooded area. That sucks for me, but I have zero right to that land. It was zoned commercial, and I have no basis for demanding that the property owner not develop it. Property all around you can change at any time. And it often isn't in a way you live. You have to deal with other people having property rights too. And, unfortunately, we don't have any right to our property values being preserved or going up.

It’s nice that for some people losing money on a house doesn’t matter because they were so smart as to never treat their home as an investment. For many hard working middle class people, getting less than what they might have when they sell their home can make a difference for their futures. And confronted with that possibility, you certainly can’t blame them for asking questions.

The homeowners building the addition will also see a decrease in their potential property value, but since they were making the choices and decisions about what they were building, they were able to take that into account and decide that they were okay with that. The other homeowners on the block obviously had no say, so they are dealing with a situation that has been thrust upon them.

The irony is that this family says they are building this to take care of elderly parents. Others on the block might end up with less for their own care when they are elderly because of this project.

Zero percent chance the owners get less than they paid for the house. Will they make back the money spent on the addition? Most don’t in the short-term. Maybe they don’t view their primary home as an investment either.

Understanding property owners’ rights with their own land has nothing to do with being rich. I borrowed max against my retirement accounts and walked dogs to afford the down payment on my first and only house that I purchased two years ago (at the top of the market!). But I have full understanding that I don’t own the land around me and that because I don’t live in an HOA, my neighbors can do what they want. One neighbor has missing shutters, peeling paint, house painted different colors, a cracked sewer pipe, and trash cans sitting out even though it’s a “nice neighborhood” and his house is likely worth over $1 MM. I don’t have control over that. Nor do I have control over the forested area being developed. Those are just risks you bear with home ownership. I’m sorry the Greebrier neighbors didn’t understand that.

You misunderstand the point. The post above is not saying that the homeowners would get less than they paid for the house. What is being pointed out here is that the house will sit on the market longer because there will be fewer buyers interested in a house that looks like this. With fewer interested buyers, there would be less competition on price, so the price is likely to end up not as high as it might have been had they not built this particular structure.

Also, any comparables in the neighborhood will also be lower because fewer buyers will be interested in living on this street and the ones who are willing to live there will expect a bargain price, which will result in sales prices being lower than they would have been had this particular structure not been built. Everyone on the street loses in the long run.

Pure speculation. Some people might be thrilled to get that kind of square footage in a neighborhood with such great schools. Inexpensively increasing square footage is consistently the best ROI when it comes to property upgrades renovations. Can't say what it will do to other homes, but my parents had numerous ugly, massive rebuilds on their street. They sold their original cottage, which had appreciated over 300% in less than two decades and way higher than the zip code overall.

In other words, you really don't know what it will do to property values.

Well, you never know. Some people might want square footage, even in a big box that was built as cheaply as possible. And let’s face it, the schools are fine, but they’re not in one of the pyramids that people are fighting to get into. So maybe there will be a slew of people bidding up the price of a house with a large, ugly, lower quality addition in a middling school pyramid. It could happen. But I certainly wouldn’t count on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People really need to stop with the race angle. This is not about race.

Take a look at the demos in our neighborhood schools. My child’s best friends are all of Asian descent (Korean, Indian, etc). Amazing and lovely families.

Did you know you can be racist even though your child has friends from other races?

The race card was never brought up until Mike did it in his TV interview. He made a comment about in his culture they don’t put parents in nursing homes.

There are lots of types of families and cultures that don’t put families in nursing homes .Mike’s not alone in that, but he brought the topic up into this whole mess.

[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:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Surely you knew there wasn't an HOA when you bought the home.

Yes, we knew there was no HOA. And?

Then you knew you couldn't control what other people would build.

Most in this neighborhood didn’t realize that the county zoning office would approve a monstrosity like this. What everyday citizen gets deep into zoning to figure out that the county would allow a 3 story Motor Lodge to be attached to modest cape cod?

Are you saying you were oblivious to basic zoning requirements? Or that you expected the county to illegally deny a permit for a legal addition? It is troubling either way, but I'm curious.

It’s troubling that someone just going along in life doesn’t spend hours thinking about the outer limits of what county zoning might allow?

No, we honestly didn’t realize. We’re not asking them to deny legal additions. If this is within the rules, there isn’t much to be done. The only move any of can make moving forward is to try to work with county officials to change things moving forward.

You're surprised someone might want to build something at the maximum allowable height? Or it isn't something you cared enough about to make it an issue?

Pretty crappy of you to later decide it is important after someone spent $100k on their home.

If there was a substantive violation, that would be one thing. But you've just been looking for a technicality to kill it. And I think that's an awful thing to do to a family.

It also isn’t very nice for someone to figure out the maximum limits of a structure that can be legally built and then technically follow those limits without any thought at all for how the structure would look and how it would affect the neighbors. It isn’t very nice to do something that will make it harder for everyone on this block to sell their homes someday and then they’ll only be able to sell for less than they could have had this structure never been built. It isn’t very nice to think only about oneself and not care about how one’s actions will affect others.

And to be surprised when those you are harming have the nerve to ask questions about what you’re doing- well, that pretty much takes the cake.

They knew what the structure looked like and liked it. That's why they built it. While you may think it's rude to build without consulting with the neighbors, it's definitely not required and shouldn't be expected. What would happen if the neighbor said, "We want you to cut off the top floor." Mike would then say, "But we want/need all those bedrooms?" Then the neighbor said, "But it's uglier that way." How would this be resolved?

It really sounds like the neighbors want the addition to be done more tastefully and expensively. If that's what the neighbors want, they should chip in to fund the difference. Apparently, it would benefit the neighbors, too, and the homeowner is fine with how the existing structure looks so doesn't really benefit.

No, the neighbors would probably prefer that the owners here didn’t take an action that will harm everyone on the street by reducing the value of their homes.

I don’t live in this neighborhood, but I live in one that is similar. We have a very nice community of people who help their neighbors and have an interest in living in a pleasant neighborhood to raise their kids and, yes, everyone would like their property values to increase over time. Sometimes the economy is bad and values decrease, everyone knows that. But it would be rightfully upsetting to anyone if their property value went down because one owner decided to do something to his property that lowered his own and everyone else’s property values.

I imagine this homeowner would not have been happy if someone on his street did something that would make his home worth less than it would have been worth when it’s time to sell, or even take a loan on the house to finance improvements.

This is part of why your home should never be treated as an investment. Many things impact property values that are entirely outside of your control. Lots of risk, and it's important to accept that. There's undeveloped land that is being sold to a commercial developer within eyeshot of my house. Previously it was a wooded area. That sucks for me, but I have zero right to that land. It was zoned commercial, and I have no basis for demanding that the property owner not develop it. Property all around you can change at any time. And it often isn't in a way you live. You have to deal with other people having property rights too. And, unfortunately, we don't have any right to our property values being preserved or going up.

It’s nice that for some people losing money on a house doesn’t matter because they were so smart as to never treat their home as an investment. For many hard working middle class people, getting less than what they might have when they sell their home can make a difference for their futures. And confronted with that possibility, you certainly can’t blame them for asking questions.

The homeowners building the addition will also see a decrease in their potential property value, but since they were making the choices and decisions about what they were building, they were able to take that into account and decide that they were okay with that. The other homeowners on the block obviously had no say, so they are dealing with a situation that has been thrust upon them.

The irony is that this family says they are building this to take care of elderly parents. Others on the block might end up with less for their own care when they are elderly because of this project.

Zero percent chance the owners get less than they paid for the house. Will they make back the money spent on the addition? Most don’t in the short-term. Maybe they don’t view their primary home as an investment either.

Understanding property owners’ rights with their own land has nothing to do with being rich. I borrowed max against my retirement accounts and walked dogs to afford the down payment on my first and only house that I purchased two years ago (at the top of the market!). But I have full understanding that I don’t own the land around me and that because I don’t live in an HOA, my neighbors can do what they want. One neighbor has missing shutters, peeling paint, house painted different colors, a cracked sewer pipe, and trash cans sitting out even though it’s a “nice neighborhood” and his house is likely worth over $1 MM. I don’t have control over that. Nor do I have control over the forested area being developed. Those are just risks you bear with home ownership. I’m sorry the Greebrier neighbors didn’t understand that.

You misunderstand the point. The post above is not saying that the homeowners would get less than they paid for the house. What is being pointed out here is that the house will sit on the market longer because there will be fewer buyers interested in a house that looks like this. With fewer interested buyers, there would be less competition on price, so the price is likely to end up not as high as it might have been had they not built this particular structure.

Also, any comparables in the neighborhood will also be lower because fewer buyers will be interested in living on this street and the ones who are willing to live there will expect a bargain price, which will result in sales prices being lower than they would have been had this particular structure not been built. Everyone on the street loses in the long run.

Pure speculation. Some people might be thrilled to get that kind of square footage in a neighborhood with such great schools. Inexpensively increasing square footage is consistently the best ROI when it comes to property upgrades renovations. Can't say what it will do to other homes, but my parents had numerous ugly, massive rebuilds on their street. They sold their original cottage, which had appreciated over 300% in less than two decades and way higher than the zip code overall.

In other words, you really don't know what it will do to property values.

Well, you never know. Some people might want square footage, even in a big box that was built as cheaply as possible. And let’s face it, the schools are fine, but they’re not in one of the pyramids that people are fighting to get into. So maybe there will be a slew of people bidding up the price of a house with a large, ugly, lower quality addition in a middling school pyramid. It could happen. But I certainly wouldn’t count on it.

All 7 and 8 out 10 rated schools are pretty desirable... Our neighborhood has all 5s and barely anyone uses public schools. They used to be 3s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People really need to stop with the race angle. This is not about race.

Take a look at the demos in our neighborhood schools. My child’s best friends are all of Asian descent (Korean, Indian, etc). Amazing and lovely families.

Did you know you can be racist even though your child has friends from other races?

The race card was never brought up until Mike did it in his TV interview. He made a comment about in his culture they don’t put parents in nursing homes.

There are lots of types of families and cultures that don’t put families in nursing homes .Mike’s not alone in that, but he brought the topic up into this whole mess.

Read the posts here and on reddit again. Or look at the comment sections after the articles. Or read the submitted complaints. The ethnicity of the family is absolutely an issue for some people.

[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:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Surely you knew there wasn't an HOA when you bought the home.

Yes, we knew there was no HOA. And?

Then you knew you couldn't control what other people would build.

Most in this neighborhood didn’t realize that the county zoning office would approve a monstrosity like this. What everyday citizen gets deep into zoning to figure out that the county would allow a 3 story Motor Lodge to be attached to modest cape cod?

Are you saying you were oblivious to basic zoning requirements? Or that you expected the county to illegally deny a permit for a legal addition? It is troubling either way, but I'm curious.

It’s troubling that someone just going along in life doesn’t spend hours thinking about the outer limits of what county zoning might allow?

No, we honestly didn’t realize. We’re not asking them to deny legal additions. If this is within the rules, there isn’t much to be done. The only move any of can make moving forward is to try to work with county officials to change things moving forward.

You're surprised someone might want to build something at the maximum allowable height? Or it isn't something you cared enough about to make it an issue?

Pretty crappy of you to later decide it is important after someone spent $100k on their home.

If there was a substantive violation, that would be one thing. But you've just been looking for a technicality to kill it. And I think that's an awful thing to do to a family.

It also isn’t very nice for someone to figure out the maximum limits of a structure that can be legally built and then technically follow those limits without any thought at all for how the structure would look and how it would affect the neighbors. It isn’t very nice to do something that will make it harder for everyone on this block to sell their homes someday and then they’ll only be able to sell for less than they could have had this structure never been built. It isn’t very nice to think only about oneself and not care about how one’s actions will affect others.

And to be surprised when those you are harming have the nerve to ask questions about what you’re doing- well, that pretty much takes the cake.

They knew what the structure looked like and liked it. That's why they built it. While you may think it's rude to build without consulting with the neighbors, it's definitely not required and shouldn't be expected. What would happen if the neighbor said, "We want you to cut off the top floor." Mike would then say, "But we want/need all those bedrooms?" Then the neighbor said, "But it's uglier that way." How would this be resolved?

It really sounds like the neighbors want the addition to be done more tastefully and expensively. If that's what the neighbors want, they should chip in to fund the difference. Apparently, it would benefit the neighbors, too, and the homeowner is fine with how the existing structure looks so doesn't really benefit.

No, the neighbors would probably prefer that the owners here didn’t take an action that will harm everyone on the street by reducing the value of their homes.

I don’t live in this neighborhood, but I live in one that is similar. We have a very nice community of people who help their neighbors and have an interest in living in a pleasant neighborhood to raise their kids and, yes, everyone would like their property values to increase over time. Sometimes the economy is bad and values decrease, everyone knows that. But it would be rightfully upsetting to anyone if their property value went down because one owner decided to do something to his property that lowered his own and everyone else’s property values.

I imagine this homeowner would not have been happy if someone on his street did something that would make his home worth less than it would have been worth when it’s time to sell, or even take a loan on the house to finance improvements.

This is part of why your home should never be treated as an investment. Many things impact property values that are entirely outside of your control. Lots of risk, and it's important to accept that. There's undeveloped land that is being sold to a commercial developer within eyeshot of my house. Previously it was a wooded area. That sucks for me, but I have zero right to that land. It was zoned commercial, and I have no basis for demanding that the property owner not develop it. Property all around you can change at any time. And it often isn't in a way you live. You have to deal with other people having property rights too. And, unfortunately, we don't have any right to our property values being preserved or going up.

It’s nice that for some people losing money on a house doesn’t matter because they were so smart as to never treat their home as an investment. For many hard working middle class people, getting less than what they might have when they sell their home can make a difference for their futures. And confronted with that possibility, you certainly can’t blame them for asking questions.

The homeowners building the addition will also see a decrease in their potential property value, but since they were making the choices and decisions about what they were building, they were able to take that into account and decide that they were okay with that. The other homeowners on the block obviously had no say, so they are dealing with a situation that has been thrust upon them.

The irony is that this family says they are building this to take care of elderly parents. Others on the block might end up with less for their own care when they are elderly because of this project.

Zero percent chance the owners get less than they paid for the house. Will they make back the money spent on the addition? Most don’t in the short-term. Maybe they don’t view their primary home as an investment either.

Understanding property owners’ rights with their own land has nothing to do with being rich. I borrowed max against my retirement accounts and walked dogs to afford the down payment on my first and only house that I purchased two years ago (at the top of the market!). But I have full understanding that I don’t own the land around me and that because I don’t live in an HOA, my neighbors can do what they want. One neighbor has missing shutters, peeling paint, house painted different colors, a cracked sewer pipe, and trash cans sitting out even though it’s a “nice neighborhood” and his house is likely worth over $1 MM. I don’t have control over that. Nor do I have control over the forested area being developed. Those are just risks you bear with home ownership. I’m sorry the Greebrier neighbors didn’t understand that.

You misunderstand the point. The post above is not saying that the homeowners would get less than they paid for the house. What is being pointed out here is that the house will sit on the market longer because there will be fewer buyers interested in a house that looks like this. With fewer interested buyers, there would be less competition on price, so the price is likely to end up not as high as it might have been had they not built this particular structure.

Also, any comparables in the neighborhood will also be lower because fewer buyers will be interested in living on this street and the ones who are willing to live there will expect a bargain price, which will result in sales prices being lower than they would have been had this particular structure not been built. Everyone on the street loses in the long run.

Pure speculation. Some people might be thrilled to get that kind of square footage in a neighborhood with such great schools. Inexpensively increasing square footage is consistently the best ROI when it comes to property upgrades renovations. Can't say what it will do to other homes, but my parents had numerous ugly, massive rebuilds on their street. They sold their original cottage, which had appreciated over 300% in less than two decades and way higher than the zip code overall.

In other words, you really don't know what it will do to property values.

Well, you never know. Some people might want square footage, even in a big box that was built as cheaply as possible. And let’s face it, the schools are fine, but they’re not in one of the pyramids that people are fighting to get into. So maybe there will be a slew of people bidding up the price of a house with a large, ugly, lower quality addition in a middling school pyramid. It could happen. But I certainly wouldn’t count on it.

All 7 and 8 out 10 rated schools are pretty desirable... Our neighborhood has all 5s and barely anyone uses public schools. They used to be 3s.

I have no idea where you live, but in Fairfax County, Chantilly is considered a middling school pyramid. It’s fine, but no one is making sacrifices to get their kids in there. If anything, there are lots of complaints about how crowded the HS is, so a lot of buyers are going to steer toward more desirable Fairfax County school pyramids.