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:If the side setback is the only issue then the house will stay. It's either the architect, surveyor, or builder that will eat the cost of correcting it, not the homeowner. Either way, the addition is going to exist.

That is incorrect, it is the homeowner that bears all of the liability here as they were acting as the general contractor. Had they used a licensed GC instead of going at it themselves, they would have a path to recourse to potential recoup the loss. That being said, the project would not be in the situation it is in had they engaged professional help.

I would not be so sure about the addition staying for sure. There is a higher onus on the homeowner to get an appeal approved, and even then if the appeal is approved, anyone else with standing (not a very strict bar) can bring the matter to the circuit court. This will be tied up in process for a while.

Even if the appeal is denied, they'll move the wall rather than just giving up. Expensive, but doable.

Yes, probably, given past actions. It would be throwing good money after bad, but they don’t seem to care.

The problems arose from trying to do the project as cheaply as possible, but now they’ll have to spend so much more. It could have been nicer and more comfortable for the family if they had just done it correctly from the beginning.

They'd be spending money either way. Moving the wall will be much cheaper than any other option that would give them a similar amount of space.

Sure, but it certainly was not the smartest idea in the world to try to get this past the permit office in the first place. And it would have been less (in both money and loss of respect in the community) to have just followed the rules. The whole project has been penny wise and pound foolish.

Even if you think that, those mistakes were already made. Given where they are right now, every plausible path still involves the addition being built substantively as planned. The question is just how much it's going to cost them.

Yes, obviously, the mistakes have already been made, but it’s important to recognize that the mistakes were the result of very poor decisions. Why were those poor decisions made? Were the decision makers trying to save money and did not do good research? Did they not realize that cutting corners could end up costing so much more in the long run? Did they not educate themselves about construction and how to go about building an addition correctly?

It’s too bad this happened and it can be a good lesson to others in the future, I guess.

First mistake, using a builder (the one that wrote the letters on behalf of the homeowner) that has a revoked professional license with the state.

Huge mistake on a project of this size.

I agree!

But the point is, this addition is going to be built. This isn't about mitigating the impact on neighbors- nobody honestly thinks moving this 6-12 inches back will change things. This is about punishing the homeowner for poor choices.

I believe it’s about more than the 6-12 inches now. Apparently the board can now look at other aspects because it has entered the appeal stage.

No, because if the BZA rejects the appeal, they can still move the wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the side setback is the only issue then the house will stay. It's either the architect, surveyor, or builder that will eat the cost of correcting it, not the homeowner. Either way, the addition is going to exist.

That is incorrect, it is the homeowner that bears all of the liability here as they were acting as the general contractor. Had they used a licensed GC instead of going at it themselves, they would have a path to recourse to potential recoup the loss. That being said, the project would not be in the situation it is in had they engaged professional help.

I would not be so sure about the addition staying for sure. There is a higher onus on the homeowner to get an appeal approved, and even then if the appeal is approved, anyone else with standing (not a very strict bar) can bring the matter to the circuit court. This will be tied up in process for a while.

Even if the appeal is denied, they'll move the wall rather than just giving up. Expensive, but doable.

Yes, probably, given past actions. It would be throwing good money after bad, but they don’t seem to care.

The problems arose from trying to do the project as cheaply as possible, but now they’ll have to spend so much more. It could have been nicer and more comfortable for the family if they had just done it correctly from the beginning.

They'd be spending money either way. Moving the wall will be much cheaper than any other option that would give them a similar amount of space.

Sure, but it certainly was not the smartest idea in the world to try to get this past the permit office in the first place. And it would have been less (in both money and loss of respect in the community) to have just followed the rules. The whole project has been penny wise and pound foolish.

Even if you think that, those mistakes were already made. Given where they are right now, every plausible path still involves the addition being built substantively as planned. The question is just how much it's going to cost them.

Yes, obviously, the mistakes have already been made, but it’s important to recognize that the mistakes were the result of very poor decisions. Why were those poor decisions made? Were the decision makers trying to save money and did not do good research? Did they not realize that cutting corners could end up costing so much more in the long run? Did they not educate themselves about construction and how to go about building an addition correctly?

It’s too bad this happened and it can be a good lesson to others in the future, I guess.

First mistake, using a builder (the one that wrote the letters on behalf of the homeowner) that has a revoked professional license with the state.

Huge mistake on a project of this size.

I agree!

But the point is, this addition is going to be built. This isn't about mitigating the impact on neighbors- nobody honestly thinks moving this 6-12 inches back will change things. This is about punishing the homeowner for poor choices.

I think as much as it sucks, he needs to tear it down.

This isn't just one accidental mistake of an inch or two.

There are multiple, deliberate, dramatic unpermitted changes between the approved plans and the actual structure.

It is important to enforce the rules so that going forward, creating something completely different than your approved plans doesn't happen on other renovations

I disagree that the errors and changes made warrant the equivalent of a $100-150k fine. The cost doesn't need to be that much to deter those things.

I think some of the posters here are under the mistaken impression that this would be torn down and not rebuilt. That's not going to happen then they've already bought the materials. They'll change whatever they have to in order to salvage it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the side setback is the only issue then the house will stay. It's either the architect, surveyor, or builder that will eat the cost of correcting it, not the homeowner. Either way, the addition is going to exist.

That is incorrect, it is the homeowner that bears all of the liability here as they were acting as the general contractor. Had they used a licensed GC instead of going at it themselves, they would have a path to recourse to potential recoup the loss. That being said, the project would not be in the situation it is in had they engaged professional help.

I would not be so sure about the addition staying for sure. There is a higher onus on the homeowner to get an appeal approved, and even then if the appeal is approved, anyone else with standing (not a very strict bar) can bring the matter to the circuit court. This will be tied up in process for a while.

Even if the appeal is denied, they'll move the wall rather than just giving up. Expensive, but doable.

Yes, probably, given past actions. It would be throwing good money after bad, but they don’t seem to care.

The problems arose from trying to do the project as cheaply as possible, but now they’ll have to spend so much more. It could have been nicer and more comfortable for the family if they had just done it correctly from the beginning.

They'd be spending money either way. Moving the wall will be much cheaper than any other option that would give them a similar amount of space.

Sure, but it certainly was not the smartest idea in the world to try to get this past the permit office in the first place. And it would have been less (in both money and loss of respect in the community) to have just followed the rules. The whole project has been penny wise and pound foolish.

Even if you think that, those mistakes were already made. Given where they are right now, every plausible path still involves the addition being built substantively as planned. The question is just how much it's going to cost them.

Yes, obviously, the mistakes have already been made, but it’s important to recognize that the mistakes were the result of very poor decisions. Why were those poor decisions made? Were the decision makers trying to save money and did not do good research? Did they not realize that cutting corners could end up costing so much more in the long run? Did they not educate themselves about construction and how to go about building an addition correctly?

It’s too bad this happened and it can be a good lesson to others in the future, I guess.

First mistake, using a builder (the one that wrote the letters on behalf of the homeowner) that has a revoked professional license with the state.

Huge mistake on a project of this size.

I agree!

But the point is, this addition is going to be built. This isn't about mitigating the impact on neighbors- nobody honestly thinks moving this 6-12 inches back will change things. This is about punishing the homeowner for poor choices.

I think as much as it sucks, he needs to tear it down.

This isn't just one accidental mistake of an inch or two.

There are multiple, deliberate, dramatic unpermitted changes between the approved plans and the actual structure.

It is important to enforce the rules so that going forward, creating something completely different than your approved plans doesn't happen on other renovations

I hope he builds it to look exactly the same and a foot narrower. It’ll look even weirder that way.

That's exactly what they said was the very expensive alternative.

[Anonymous]

Of course they said it was an expensive alternative. What else were they going to say?

Noticed their letter didn’t say how much it would cost. Expensive is relative term..

[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:If the side setback is the only issue then the house will stay. It's either the architect, surveyor, or builder that will eat the cost of correcting it, not the homeowner. Either way, the addition is going to exist.

That is incorrect, it is the homeowner that bears all of the liability here as they were acting as the general contractor. Had they used a licensed GC instead of going at it themselves, they would have a path to recourse to potential recoup the loss. That being said, the project would not be in the situation it is in had they engaged professional help.

I would not be so sure about the addition staying for sure. There is a higher onus on the homeowner to get an appeal approved, and even then if the appeal is approved, anyone else with standing (not a very strict bar) can bring the matter to the circuit court. This will be tied up in process for a while.

Even if the appeal is denied, they'll move the wall rather than just giving up. Expensive, but doable.

Yes, probably, given past actions. It would be throwing good money after bad, but they don’t seem to care.

The problems arose from trying to do the project as cheaply as possible, but now they’ll have to spend so much more. It could have been nicer and more comfortable for the family if they had just done it correctly from the beginning.

They'd be spending money either way. Moving the wall will be much cheaper than any other option that would give them a similar amount of space.

Sure, but it certainly was not the smartest idea in the world to try to get this past the permit office in the first place. And it would have been less (in both money and loss of respect in the community) to have just followed the rules. The whole project has been penny wise and pound foolish.

Even if you think that, those mistakes were already made. Given where they are right now, every plausible path still involves the addition being built substantively as planned. The question is just how much it's going to cost them.

Yes, obviously, the mistakes have already been made, but it’s important to recognize that the mistakes were the result of very poor decisions. Why were those poor decisions made? Were the decision makers trying to save money and did not do good research? Did they not realize that cutting corners could end up costing so much more in the long run? Did they not educate themselves about construction and how to go about building an addition correctly?

It’s too bad this happened and it can be a good lesson to others in the future, I guess.

First mistake, using a builder (the one that wrote the letters on behalf of the homeowner) that has a revoked professional license with the state.

Huge mistake on a project of this size.

I agree!

But the point is, this addition is going to be built. This isn't about mitigating the impact on neighbors- nobody honestly thinks moving this 6-12 inches back will change things. This is about punishing the homeowner for poor choices.

I believe it’s about more than the 6-12 inches now. Apparently the board can now look at other aspects because it has entered the appeal stage.

No, because if the BZA rejects the appeal, they can still move the wall.

Which is an amendment to the existing building plans. Which will need approval from the BZA. It's more likely to get approved, but I wouldn't be willing to make a bet either way.

[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:If the side setback is the only issue then the house will stay. It's either the architect, surveyor, or builder that will eat the cost of correcting it, not the homeowner. Either way, the addition is going to exist.

That is incorrect, it is the homeowner that bears all of the liability here as they were acting as the general contractor. Had they used a licensed GC instead of going at it themselves, they would have a path to recourse to potential recoup the loss. That being said, the project would not be in the situation it is in had they engaged professional help.

I would not be so sure about the addition staying for sure. There is a higher onus on the homeowner to get an appeal approved, and even then if the appeal is approved, anyone else with standing (not a very strict bar) can bring the matter to the circuit court. This will be tied up in process for a while.

Even if the appeal is denied, they'll move the wall rather than just giving up. Expensive, but doable.

Yes, probably, given past actions. It would be throwing good money after bad, but they don’t seem to care.

The problems arose from trying to do the project as cheaply as possible, but now they’ll have to spend so much more. It could have been nicer and more comfortable for the family if they had just done it correctly from the beginning.

They'd be spending money either way. Moving the wall will be much cheaper than any other option that would give them a similar amount of space.

Sure, but it certainly was not the smartest idea in the world to try to get this past the permit office in the first place. And it would have been less (in both money and loss of respect in the community) to have just followed the rules. The whole project has been penny wise and pound foolish.

Even if you think that, those mistakes were already made. Given where they are right now, every plausible path still involves the addition being built substantively as planned. The question is just how much it's going to cost them.

Yes, obviously, the mistakes have already been made, but it’s important to recognize that the mistakes were the result of very poor decisions. Why were those poor decisions made? Were the decision makers trying to save money and did not do good research? Did they not realize that cutting corners could end up costing so much more in the long run? Did they not educate themselves about construction and how to go about building an addition correctly?

It’s too bad this happened and it can be a good lesson to others in the future, I guess.

First mistake, using a builder (the one that wrote the letters on behalf of the homeowner) that has a revoked professional license with the state.

Huge mistake on a project of this size.

I agree!

But the point is, this addition is going to be built. This isn't about mitigating the impact on neighbors- nobody honestly thinks moving this 6-12 inches back will change things. This is about punishing the homeowner for poor choices.

I believe it’s about more than the 6-12 inches now. Apparently the board can now look at other aspects because it has entered the appeal stage.

No, because if the BZA rejects the appeal, they can still move the wall.

Which is an amendment to the existing building plans. Which will need approval from the BZA. It's more likely to get approved, but I wouldn't be willing to make a bet either way.

It wouldn't need to go to the BZA.

[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:If the side setback is the only issue then the house will stay. It's either the architect, surveyor, or builder that will eat the cost of correcting it, not the homeowner. Either way, the addition is going to exist.

That is incorrect, it is the homeowner that bears all of the liability here as they were acting as the general contractor. Had they used a licensed GC instead of going at it themselves, they would have a path to recourse to potential recoup the loss. That being said, the project would not be in the situation it is in had they engaged professional help.

I would not be so sure about the addition staying for sure. There is a higher onus on the homeowner to get an appeal approved, and even then if the appeal is approved, anyone else with standing (not a very strict bar) can bring the matter to the circuit court. This will be tied up in process for a while.

Even if the appeal is denied, they'll move the wall rather than just giving up. Expensive, but doable.

Yes, probably, given past actions. It would be throwing good money after bad, but they don’t seem to care.

The problems arose from trying to do the project as cheaply as possible, but now they’ll have to spend so much more. It could have been nicer and more comfortable for the family if they had just done it correctly from the beginning.

They'd be spending money either way. Moving the wall will be much cheaper than any other option that would give them a similar amount of space.

Sure, but it certainly was not the smartest idea in the world to try to get this past the permit office in the first place. And it would have been less (in both money and loss of respect in the community) to have just followed the rules. The whole project has been penny wise and pound foolish.

Even if you think that, those mistakes were already made. Given where they are right now, every plausible path still involves the addition being built substantively as planned. The question is just how much it's going to cost them.

Yes, obviously, the mistakes have already been made, but it’s important to recognize that the mistakes were the result of very poor decisions. Why were those poor decisions made? Were the decision makers trying to save money and did not do good research? Did they not realize that cutting corners could end up costing so much more in the long run? Did they not educate themselves about construction and how to go about building an addition correctly?

It’s too bad this happened and it can be a good lesson to others in the future, I guess.

First mistake, using a builder (the one that wrote the letters on behalf of the homeowner) that has a revoked professional license with the state.

Huge mistake on a project of this size.

I agree!

But the point is, this addition is going to be built. This isn't about mitigating the impact on neighbors- nobody honestly thinks moving this 6-12 inches back will change things. This is about punishing the homeowner for poor choices.

I believe it’s about more than the 6-12 inches now. Apparently the board can now look at other aspects because it has entered the appeal stage.

No, because if the BZA rejects the appeal, they can still move the wall.

Which is an amendment to the existing building plans. Which will need approval from the BZA. It's more likely to get approved, but I wouldn't be willing to make a bet either way.

It wouldn't need to go to the BZA.

It might get more than just an LDS review. It's not a trivial change to move a three story wall 6".

[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:If the side setback is the only issue then the house will stay. It's either the architect, surveyor, or builder that will eat the cost of correcting it, not the homeowner. Either way, the addition is going to exist.

That is incorrect, it is the homeowner that bears all of the liability here as they were acting as the general contractor. Had they used a licensed GC instead of going at it themselves, they would have a path to recourse to potential recoup the loss. That being said, the project would not be in the situation it is in had they engaged professional help.

I would not be so sure about the addition staying for sure. There is a higher onus on the homeowner to get an appeal approved, and even then if the appeal is approved, anyone else with standing (not a very strict bar) can bring the matter to the circuit court. This will be tied up in process for a while.

Even if the appeal is denied, they'll move the wall rather than just giving up. Expensive, but doable.

Yes, probably, given past actions. It would be throwing good money after bad, but they don’t seem to care.

The problems arose from trying to do the project as cheaply as possible, but now they’ll have to spend so much more. It could have been nicer and more comfortable for the family if they had just done it correctly from the beginning.

They'd be spending money either way. Moving the wall will be much cheaper than any other option that would give them a similar amount of space.

Sure, but it certainly was not the smartest idea in the world to try to get this past the permit office in the first place. And it would have been less (in both money and loss of respect in the community) to have just followed the rules. The whole project has been penny wise and pound foolish.

Even if you think that, those mistakes were already made. Given where they are right now, every plausible path still involves the addition being built substantively as planned. The question is just how much it's going to cost them.

Yes, obviously, the mistakes have already been made, but it’s important to recognize that the mistakes were the result of very poor decisions. Why were those poor decisions made? Were the decision makers trying to save money and did not do good research? Did they not realize that cutting corners could end up costing so much more in the long run? Did they not educate themselves about construction and how to go about building an addition correctly?

It’s too bad this happened and it can be a good lesson to others in the future, I guess.

First mistake, using a builder (the one that wrote the letters on behalf of the homeowner) that has a revoked professional license with the state.

Huge mistake on a project of this size.

I agree!

But the point is, this addition is going to be built. This isn't about mitigating the impact on neighbors- nobody honestly thinks moving this 6-12 inches back will change things. This is about punishing the homeowner for poor choices.

I believe it’s about more than the 6-12 inches now. Apparently the board can now look at other aspects because it has entered the appeal stage.

No, because if the BZA rejects the appeal, they can still move the wall.

Which is an amendment to the existing building plans. Which will need approval from the BZA. It's more likely to get approved, but I wouldn't be willing to make a bet either way.

It wouldn't need to go to the BZA.

It might get more than just an LDS review. It's not a trivial change to move a three story wall 6".

But it wouldn't need any special approvals from the BZA. And the current zoning rules would apply even if county manages to push through a change.

[Anonymous]

***Update for 02/02/26***

The revisions for the building permit amendment have been APPROVED. Unfortunately there is not any detail on the website about what ended up being approved within the revisions. I do not believe though the homeowner is able to continue with any construction however since the zoning issue remains open and the stop work order references this issue needing to be resolved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:***Update for 02/02/26***

The revisions for the building permit amendment have been APPROVED. Unfortunately there is not any detail on the website about what ended up being approved within the revisions. I do not believe though the homeowner is able to continue with any construction however since the zoning issue remains open and the stop work order references this issue needing to be resolved.

The neighbors need to hire an attorney to sue over this approval. Definitely an arbitrary and capricious decision by the country and they would have standing to sue county.

[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:If the side setback is the only issue then the house will stay. It's either the architect, surveyor, or builder that will eat the cost of correcting it, not the homeowner. Either way, the addition is going to exist.

That is incorrect, it is the homeowner that bears all of the liability here as they were acting as the general contractor. Had they used a licensed GC instead of going at it themselves, they would have a path to recourse to potential recoup the loss. That being said, the project would not be in the situation it is in had they engaged professional help.

I would not be so sure about the addition staying for sure. There is a higher onus on the homeowner to get an appeal approved, and even then if the appeal is approved, anyone else with standing (not a very strict bar) can bring the matter to the circuit court. This will be tied up in process for a while.

Even if the appeal is denied, they'll move the wall rather than just giving up. Expensive, but doable.

Yes, probably, given past actions. It would be throwing good money after bad, but they don’t seem to care.

The problems arose from trying to do the project as cheaply as possible, but now they’ll have to spend so much more. It could have been nicer and more comfortable for the family if they had just done it correctly from the beginning.

They'd be spending money either way. Moving the wall will be much cheaper than any other option that would give them a similar amount of space.

Sure, but it certainly was not the smartest idea in the world to try to get this past the permit office in the first place. And it would have been less (in both money and loss of respect in the community) to have just followed the rules. The whole project has been penny wise and pound foolish.

Even if you think that, those mistakes were already made. Given where they are right now, every plausible path still involves the addition being built substantively as planned. The question is just how much it's going to cost them.

Yes, obviously, the mistakes have already been made, but it’s important to recognize that the mistakes were the result of very poor decisions. Why were those poor decisions made? Were the decision makers trying to save money and did not do good research? Did they not realize that cutting corners could end up costing so much more in the long run? Did they not educate themselves about construction and how to go about building an addition correctly?

It’s too bad this happened and it can be a good lesson to others in the future, I guess.

First mistake, using a builder (the one that wrote the letters on behalf of the homeowner) that has a revoked professional license with the state.

Huge mistake on a project of this size.

I agree!

But the point is, this addition is going to be built. This isn't about mitigating the impact on neighbors- nobody honestly thinks moving this 6-12 inches back will change things. This is about punishing the homeowner for poor choices.

I believe it’s about more than the 6-12 inches now. Apparently the board can now look at other aspects because it has entered the appeal stage.

And that’s what I think is wrong. I think the BZA should not be considering height when the height is clearly permitted. They’re nitpicking a several inch setback violation (that is pretty commonplace) because they absolutely hate the aesthetics of the property, even though the aesthetic aspects they dislike are perfectly legal. The BZA should not be using its authority to punish aesthetic choices otherwise permitted by the building code/zoning code.

They are legally allowed to consider this for a zoning variance request. BZA is explicitly allowed to consider impacts on neighborhood character when people are requesting a variance to zoning rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:***Update for 02/02/26***

The revisions for the building permit amendment have been APPROVED. Unfortunately there is not any detail on the website about what ended up being approved within the revisions. I do not believe though the homeowner is able to continue with any construction however since the zoning issue remains open and the stop work order references this issue needing to be resolved.

I believe that's the amendments to correct the garage deletion and window changes.

Record BLDR-2025-00331-01: Changes to Exterior Windows and Interior Layout on 1st Floor, 2nd Floor and 3rd Floor.

https://plus.fairfaxcounty.gov/CitizenAccess/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Building&capID1=REC25&capID2=00000&capID3=02WDI&agencyCode=FFX

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:***Update for 02/02/26***

The revisions for the building permit amendment have been APPROVED. Unfortunately there is not any detail on the website about what ended up being approved within the revisions. I do not believe though the homeowner is able to continue with any construction however since the zoning issue remains open and the stop work order references this issue needing to be resolved.

I think that is great news. I hope the neighbors waste all their income on further litigation. If living in a neighborhood with an HOA was important to them, the picked the wrong subdivision. Their money would be best spend renting out their house and finding a new place to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:***Update for 02/02/26***

The revisions for the building permit amendment have been APPROVED. Unfortunately there is not any detail on the website about what ended up being approved within the revisions. I do not believe though the homeowner is able to continue with any construction however since the zoning issue remains open and the stop work order references this issue needing to be resolved.

The neighbors need to hire an attorney to sue over this approval. Definitely an arbitrary and capricious decision by the country and they would have standing to sue county.

It really isn't in the neighbors' best interests to fight this. The addition will be build either way. How much is it worth in legal fees to force the homeowner to push back the wall 6-10 inches? And if the homeowner has to spend a hundred thousand dollars on that, they're going to need to cut costs elsewhere on non-critical elements. Those are going to be design elements impacting aesthetics, not structural elements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:***Update for 02/02/26***

The revisions for the building permit amendment have been APPROVED. Unfortunately there is not any detail on the website about what ended up being approved within the revisions. I do not believe though the homeowner is able to continue with any construction however since the zoning issue remains open and the stop work order references this issue needing to be resolved.

The neighbors need to hire an attorney to sue over this approval. Definitely an arbitrary and capricious decision by the country and they would have standing to sue county.

It really isn't in the neighbors' best interests to fight this. The addition will be build either way. How much is it worth in legal fees to force the homeowner to push back the wall 6-10 inches? And if the homeowner has to spend a hundred thousand dollars on that, they're going to need to cut costs elsewhere on non-critical elements. Those are going to be design elements impacting aesthetics, not structural elements.

IMHO, there aren't $100,000 in aesthetic design elements in this structure. It's already a box with siding. You can't trim (ha ha) much else.