Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a news interview the homeowner said they now have to review their options, and they said something about hiring an attorney.

So is this saga likely to drag on for a long time, maybe deep into 2027?

I’d also think this already shoddy addition would be compromised/the wood would be all warped after being exposed to rain, snow and ice since last fall.

Hiring an attorney now? Should have done that in the fall and certainly brought on to the Dec meetings with the county. HO mentioned in the hearing that no attorney would take his case. Why would one take it now? Or did he not want to spend the money on a lawyer then?

The HO has a history of twisting the truth. Made accusations against the county of having deadlines in December to get his request for variance paperwork turned in with supporting documentation: The deadline pressure was why he couldn’t provide sufficient documentation like product spec sheets or detailed documentation on the hardship (eg figures to the various options).He thought it was up to the county or anyone else to google siding to ascertain the siding width he was going to use. It was to be obvious to everyone he was only going to add an additional 1/2 inch width.

County rebutted that they did not give deadlines. They met with HO and told him his options to move forward. The HO was the one who rushed it because they were living through/at the project, according to the county. They did not have a deadline. The county also got called out for not addressing the back yard porch project that went unpermitted by one of the BZA members.

HO also kept stating he built according to the plans. Plans the county approved so therefore the county is liable not him. County’s position is that his plans, as the permittee, were wrong. Plans he claims the contractor drew up, but he filed as general contractor. County reviewed for zoning compliance but if he submitted something that was wrong, it’s on him.

It was also untruthful of the HO to say he built to the plans because he significantly modified the floor plans over the fall without amending his permit. He flipped the 2nd and 3rd floor, and removed the garage from what was originally permitted. Thats not a minor change of moving a toilet two inches.

And let’s not mention the structural and safety issues that caused the stop work order. This project is a disaster all around.

HO thought he could get away with this project, completing it however he wanted on the cheap. Similar to his other projects. Unfortunately for him, he chose a controversial project that has gained national attention.

This is helpful analysis. So, what happens now? Does the homeowner have a deadline to either tear the addition down or bring it into compliance?

It will definitely be appealed. That's been clear ever since they made this a political issue.

On what basis? There are 7 criteria that need to be used. As stated in the hearing, if any ONE of those criteria are not met, the appeal can be denied. The county applied the criteria, found several not met, and made its decision. BZA upheld the decision that the process was followed properly. And the 7 criteria give greater scrutiny to the project, like adverse effects on the neighbors.

What would be the basis for appeal? Just don’t like the decision? Thought modifying the project was such a hardship but able to find more money to hire a lawyer to fight?

Its time to stop throwing more money on bad decisions the HO made and move forward.

How many other setback permits did they grant that day?

[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:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Because the injection was always to the height and style, not to the structural integrity. As Courtney admitted at the hearing, the owner curing all of the violations would not actually address any of her concerns.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

And then she said that it would be less looming had it been built on the correct setback and that she supports change to the zoning laws.

The fact that the next door neighbor finds it uncomfortable to have a 30 foot high and 60 some foot long building very close to her property line is not terribly surprising. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment?

It illustrates that this issue never had anything to do with the minuscule setback violation. It was always about how she hated how the addition looked. She then weaponized her influence and connections to find violations that otherwise never would have been discovered to get the project shutdown. And she did that because she did not personally like completely lawful architectural design.

Are you saying that it would have been better to have never discovered the code violations? That could have ended up worse for the family living in a poorly constructed building.

Whether or not anyone liked the design has nothing to do with the fact that there were numerous problems and discrepancies with the project.

For whatever reason the homeowners wanted to build as big and as cheaply as possible. Inattention to detail, sloppy construction practices, and contracting with a company without a license were some of the causes of the issues with the building that were likely a result of trying to spend the very least amount possible. Unfortunately, this is a good illustration of what happens when someone is penny wise and pound foolish.

As a person who bought a house with a lot of horrible construction issues, I'm well aware of how much it sucks. It also was not discovered (apparently) in the permitting process. The issues occurring with the homeowner are frequent in construction projects, for better or worse. I'm all for building safety issues being addressed and the county doing that in a manner that is fair and consistent. Not in a manner that is a result of selective enforcement based on well-connected neighbors who don't like aesthetics of someone else's home addition and have no other way to stop it than to nitpick details that aren't actually the source of their own frustration.

As for the homeowner listing himself as the contractor, that was definitely a mistake. He was also advised to do so by a contractor who had his licensed revoked for telling his clients they had to do that. But I agree the homeowner is liable now for fixing the issues. I just hope he doesn't let the bullying about the design stop him from rebuilding the house he wants. If the neighbors want something more aesthetically pleasing, they're welcome to chip in to cover the additional cost of moving the addition or spreading it out. I strongly suspect they won't be willing to do that, which brings me back to the homeowner's right to build a cheap, ugly addition that he wants but because it works for him.

What's your evidence that the neighbors are well-connected?

As for fairness during inspections, there are several other issues that triggered the in depth scrutiny. He was always doomed after the wind bracing defects and failure to build to plan were discovered, even if he was within the setbacks. Mistakes cause additional scrutiny, not nosey neighbors.

The only thing that triggered additional scrutiny was Courtney’s temper tantrum that involved multiple county complaints and media appearances in local and national news.

Courtney’s ability to wield the media and local politicians to address her aesthetic concerns are demonstration of her connectedness.

That's not evidence of being connected. That's evidence of determination and a stream of emails to local officials and media.

[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:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Because the injection was always to the height and style, not to the structural integrity. As Courtney admitted at the hearing, the owner curing all of the violations would not actually address any of her concerns.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

And then she said that it would be less looming had it been built on the correct setback and that she supports change to the zoning laws.

The fact that the next door neighbor finds it uncomfortable to have a 30 foot high and 60 some foot long building very close to her property line is not terribly surprising. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment?

It illustrates that this issue never had anything to do with the minuscule setback violation. It was always about how she hated how the addition looked. She then weaponized her influence and connections to find violations that otherwise never would have been discovered to get the project shutdown. And she did that because she did not personally like completely lawful architectural design.

Are you saying that it would have been better to have never discovered the code violations? That could have ended up worse for the family living in a poorly constructed building.

Whether or not anyone liked the design has nothing to do with the fact that there were numerous problems and discrepancies with the project.

For whatever reason the homeowners wanted to build as big and as cheaply as possible. Inattention to detail, sloppy construction practices, and contracting with a company without a license were some of the causes of the issues with the building that were likely a result of trying to spend the very least amount possible. Unfortunately, this is a good illustration of what happens when someone is penny wise and pound foolish.

As a person who bought a house with a lot of horrible construction issues, I'm well aware of how much it sucks. It also was not discovered (apparently) in the permitting process. The issues occurring with the homeowner are frequent in construction projects, for better or worse. I'm all for building safety issues being addressed and the county doing that in a manner that is fair and consistent. Not in a manner that is a result of selective enforcement based on well-connected neighbors who don't like aesthetics of someone else's home addition and have no other way to stop it than to nitpick details that aren't actually the source of their own frustration.

As for the homeowner listing himself as the contractor, that was definitely a mistake. He was also advised to do so by a contractor who had his licensed revoked for telling his clients they had to do that. But I agree the homeowner is liable now for fixing the issues. I just hope he doesn't let the bullying about the design stop him from rebuilding the house he wants. If the neighbors want something more aesthetically pleasing, they're welcome to chip in to cover the additional cost of moving the addition or spreading it out. I strongly suspect they won't be willing to do that, which brings me back to the homeowner's right to build a cheap, ugly addition that he wants but because it works for him.

What's your evidence that the neighbors are well-connected?

As for fairness during inspections, there are several other issues that triggered the in depth scrutiny. He was always doomed after the wind bracing defects and failure to build to plan were discovered, even if he was within the setbacks. Mistakes cause additional scrutiny, not nosey neighbors.

The only thing that triggered additional scrutiny was Courtney’s temper tantrum that involved multiple county complaints and media appearances in local and national news.

Courtney’s ability to wield the media and local politicians to address her aesthetic concerns are demonstration of her connectedness.

Sure - perhaps the neighbors complaints to the county brought more scrutiny. That is within the neighbor’s rights to complain. It’s not all about the HOs rights.

The county did their job by inspecting. Even without the complaints, the county would have performed multiple inspections. At the hearing, the county said it was during one of the inspections that something felt off with the setback, that’s why they required the windbracing inspections and surveys.

The complaints weren't about actual violations, at least until Courtney apparently retained a lawyer to find violations that didn't actually address her concerns. Her initial complaints to the county were all dismissed, which enraged her and led her to go to the media. Only then was heightened scrutiny placed on the property and previously unknown violations not related to the height and "wall effect" were discovered.

This entire dispute is about how the neighbors don't like the ugly house. The neighbors (Courtney) were able to leverage connections to get heightened scrutiny placed on the homeowner, which led to the county discovering issues that have nothing to do with the ugliness that triggered the underlying complaint. Absent the heightened scrutiny, these would have gone unnoticed by the county, which is what happens like 90+% of the time.

It's just an example of county residents feeling as though the county should be their personal HOA, even when they knowingly moved to a community without one. I, for one, don't want to live in a society where my connected neighbor gets to wield the local government to dictate someone else's aesthetic choices on their own home. If I want to live in a place that requires cohesive architecture, I'll be sure to move to one of the MANY HOA communities in Northern Virginia.

That’s good for you but many of us don’t want to live in a neighborhood where the county isn’t doing its job properly regarding inspections and ensuring that any additions are within what’s legally allowed and approved. If we notice something that seems unsafe or illegal, it’s well within our rights to raise it to the proper authorities. Kudos to Courtney and her fellow neighbors for making sure the county does its job.

I think most all of us want to live in a society where the county enforces its rules consistently and fairly. Not selective enforcement in response to angry, busybody neighbors.

[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:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Because the injection was always to the height and style, not to the structural integrity. As Courtney admitted at the hearing, the owner curing all of the violations would not actually address any of her concerns.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

And then she said that it would be less looming had it been built on the correct setback and that she supports change to the zoning laws.

The fact that the next door neighbor finds it uncomfortable to have a 30 foot high and 60 some foot long building very close to her property line is not terribly surprising. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment?

It illustrates that this issue never had anything to do with the minuscule setback violation. It was always about how she hated how the addition looked. She then weaponized her influence and connections to find violations that otherwise never would have been discovered to get the project shutdown. And she did that because she did not personally like completely lawful architectural design.

Are you saying that it would have been better to have never discovered the code violations? That could have ended up worse for the family living in a poorly constructed building.

Whether or not anyone liked the design has nothing to do with the fact that there were numerous problems and discrepancies with the project.

For whatever reason the homeowners wanted to build as big and as cheaply as possible. Inattention to detail, sloppy construction practices, and contracting with a company without a license were some of the causes of the issues with the building that were likely a result of trying to spend the very least amount possible. Unfortunately, this is a good illustration of what happens when someone is penny wise and pound foolish.

As a person who bought a house with a lot of horrible construction issues, I'm well aware of how much it sucks. It also was not discovered (apparently) in the permitting process. The issues occurring with the homeowner are frequent in construction projects, for better or worse. I'm all for building safety issues being addressed and the county doing that in a manner that is fair and consistent. Not in a manner that is a result of selective enforcement based on well-connected neighbors who don't like aesthetics of someone else's home addition and have no other way to stop it than to nitpick details that aren't actually the source of their own frustration.

As for the homeowner listing himself as the contractor, that was definitely a mistake. He was also advised to do so by a contractor who had his licensed revoked for telling his clients they had to do that. But I agree the homeowner is liable now for fixing the issues. I just hope he doesn't let the bullying about the design stop him from rebuilding the house he wants. If the neighbors want something more aesthetically pleasing, they're welcome to chip in to cover the additional cost of moving the addition or spreading it out. I strongly suspect they won't be willing to do that, which brings me back to the homeowner's right to build a cheap, ugly addition that he wants but because it works for him.

What's your evidence that the neighbors are well-connected?

As for fairness during inspections, there are several other issues that triggered the in depth scrutiny. He was always doomed after the wind bracing defects and failure to build to plan were discovered, even if he was within the setbacks. Mistakes cause additional scrutiny, not nosey neighbors.

The only thing that triggered additional scrutiny was Courtney’s temper tantrum that involved multiple county complaints and media appearances in local and national news.

Courtney’s ability to wield the media and local politicians to address her aesthetic concerns are demonstration of her connectedness.

Looks like the Courtney hater is back. They always try to deflect the issue of the poor quality and no compliant addition to her anger over it. Most people would feel the same way she does if their neighbor did the same thing as this homeowner did.

It’s about how the enforcement of the poor work quality was triggered only because of her anger over aesthetics, not any legitimate concern about workmanship.

[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:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Because the injection was always to the height and style, not to the structural integrity. As Courtney admitted at the hearing, the owner curing all of the violations would not actually address any of her concerns.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

And then she said that it would be less looming had it been built on the correct setback and that she supports change to the zoning laws.

The fact that the next door neighbor finds it uncomfortable to have a 30 foot high and 60 some foot long building very close to her property line is not terribly surprising. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment?

It illustrates that this issue never had anything to do with the minuscule setback violation. It was always about how she hated how the addition looked. She then weaponized her influence and connections to find violations that otherwise never would have been discovered to get the project shutdown. And she did that because she did not personally like completely lawful architectural design.

Are you saying that it would have been better to have never discovered the code violations? That could have ended up worse for the family living in a poorly constructed building.

Whether or not anyone liked the design has nothing to do with the fact that there were numerous problems and discrepancies with the project.

For whatever reason the homeowners wanted to build as big and as cheaply as possible. Inattention to detail, sloppy construction practices, and contracting with a company without a license were some of the causes of the issues with the building that were likely a result of trying to spend the very least amount possible. Unfortunately, this is a good illustration of what happens when someone is penny wise and pound foolish.

As a person who bought a house with a lot of horrible construction issues, I'm well aware of how much it sucks. It also was not discovered (apparently) in the permitting process. The issues occurring with the homeowner are frequent in construction projects, for better or worse. I'm all for building safety issues being addressed and the county doing that in a manner that is fair and consistent. Not in a manner that is a result of selective enforcement based on well-connected neighbors who don't like aesthetics of someone else's home addition and have no other way to stop it than to nitpick details that aren't actually the source of their own frustration.

As for the homeowner listing himself as the contractor, that was definitely a mistake. He was also advised to do so by a contractor who had his licensed revoked for telling his clients they had to do that. But I agree the homeowner is liable now for fixing the issues. I just hope he doesn't let the bullying about the design stop him from rebuilding the house he wants. If the neighbors want something more aesthetically pleasing, they're welcome to chip in to cover the additional cost of moving the addition or spreading it out. I strongly suspect they won't be willing to do that, which brings me back to the homeowner's right to build a cheap, ugly addition that he wants but because it works for him.

What's your evidence that the neighbors are well-connected?

As for fairness during inspections, there are several other issues that triggered the in depth scrutiny. He was always doomed after the wind bracing defects and failure to build to plan were discovered, even if he was within the setbacks. Mistakes cause additional scrutiny, not nosey neighbors.

The only thing that triggered additional scrutiny was Courtney’s temper tantrum that involved multiple county complaints and media appearances in local and national news.

Courtney’s ability to wield the media and local politicians to address her aesthetic concerns are demonstration of her connectedness.

Looks like the Courtney hater is back. They always try to deflect the issue of the poor quality and no compliant addition to her anger over it. Most people would feel the same way she does if their neighbor did the same thing as this homeowner did.

It’s about how the enforcement of the poor work quality was triggered only because of her anger over aesthetics, not any legitimate concern about workmanship.

I’m 100% sure that if there was poor work quality but a design visually unoffensive to Courtney, she wouldn’t have given a shit.

[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:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Because the injection was always to the height and style, not to the structural integrity. As Courtney admitted at the hearing, the owner curing all of the violations would not actually address any of her concerns.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

And then she said that it would be less looming had it been built on the correct setback and that she supports change to the zoning laws.

The fact that the next door neighbor finds it uncomfortable to have a 30 foot high and 60 some foot long building very close to her property line is not terribly surprising. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment?

It illustrates that this issue never had anything to do with the minuscule setback violation. It was always about how she hated how the addition looked. She then weaponized her influence and connections to find violations that otherwise never would have been discovered to get the project shutdown. And she did that because she did not personally like completely lawful architectural design.

Are you saying that it would have been better to have never discovered the code violations? That could have ended up worse for the family living in a poorly constructed building.

Whether or not anyone liked the design has nothing to do with the fact that there were numerous problems and discrepancies with the project.

For whatever reason the homeowners wanted to build as big and as cheaply as possible. Inattention to detail, sloppy construction practices, and contracting with a company without a license were some of the causes of the issues with the building that were likely a result of trying to spend the very least amount possible. Unfortunately, this is a good illustration of what happens when someone is penny wise and pound foolish.

As a person who bought a house with a lot of horrible construction issues, I'm well aware of how much it sucks. It also was not discovered (apparently) in the permitting process. The issues occurring with the homeowner are frequent in construction projects, for better or worse. I'm all for building safety issues being addressed and the county doing that in a manner that is fair and consistent. Not in a manner that is a result of selective enforcement based on well-connected neighbors who don't like aesthetics of someone else's home addition and have no other way to stop it than to nitpick details that aren't actually the source of their own frustration.

As for the homeowner listing himself as the contractor, that was definitely a mistake. He was also advised to do so by a contractor who had his licensed revoked for telling his clients they had to do that. But I agree the homeowner is liable now for fixing the issues. I just hope he doesn't let the bullying about the design stop him from rebuilding the house he wants. If the neighbors want something more aesthetically pleasing, they're welcome to chip in to cover the additional cost of moving the addition or spreading it out. I strongly suspect they won't be willing to do that, which brings me back to the homeowner's right to build a cheap, ugly addition that he wants but because it works for him.

What's your evidence that the neighbors are well-connected?

As for fairness during inspections, there are several other issues that triggered the in depth scrutiny. He was always doomed after the wind bracing defects and failure to build to plan were discovered, even if he was within the setbacks. Mistakes cause additional scrutiny, not nosey neighbors.

The only thing that triggered additional scrutiny was Courtney’s temper tantrum that involved multiple county complaints and media appearances in local and national news.

Courtney’s ability to wield the media and local politicians to address her aesthetic concerns are demonstration of her connectedness.

Looks like the Courtney hater is back. They always try to deflect the issue of the poor quality and no compliant addition to her anger over it. Most people would feel the same way she does if their neighbor did the same thing as this homeowner did.

It’s about how the enforcement of the poor work quality was triggered only because of her anger over aesthetics, not any legitimate concern about workmanship.

I’m 100% sure that if there was poor work quality but a design visually unoffensive to Courtney, she wouldn’t have given a shit.

Who cares what the neighbors’ motives were? All that matters is that the homeowner cut corners and the structure was not up to code. For that, the homeowner has no one but himself to blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a news interview the homeowner said they now have to review their options, and they said something about hiring an attorney.

So is this saga likely to drag on for a long time, maybe deep into 2027?

I’d also think this already shoddy addition would be compromised/the wood would be all warped after being exposed to rain, snow and ice since last fall.

Hiring an attorney now? Should have done that in the fall and certainly brought on to the Dec meetings with the county. HO mentioned in the hearing that no attorney would take his case. Why would one take it now? Or did he not want to spend the money on a lawyer then?

The HO has a history of twisting the truth. Made accusations against the county of having deadlines in December to get his request for variance paperwork turned in with supporting documentation: The deadline pressure was why he couldn’t provide sufficient documentation like product spec sheets or detailed documentation on the hardship (eg figures to the various options).He thought it was up to the county or anyone else to google siding to ascertain the siding width he was going to use. It was to be obvious to everyone he was only going to add an additional 1/2 inch width.

County rebutted that they did not give deadlines. They met with HO and told him his options to move forward. The HO was the one who rushed it because they were living through/at the project, according to the county. They did not have a deadline. The county also got called out for not addressing the back yard porch project that went unpermitted by one of the BZA members.

HO also kept stating he built according to the plans. Plans the county approved so therefore the county is liable not him. County’s position is that his plans, as the permittee, were wrong. Plans he claims the contractor drew up, but he filed as general contractor. County reviewed for zoning compliance but if he submitted something that was wrong, it’s on him.

It was also untruthful of the HO to say he built to the plans because he significantly modified the floor plans over the fall without amending his permit. He flipped the 2nd and 3rd floor, and removed the garage from what was originally permitted. Thats not a minor change of moving a toilet two inches.

And let’s not mention the structural and safety issues that caused the stop work order. This project is a disaster all around.

HO thought he could get away with this project, completing it however he wanted on the cheap. Similar to his other projects. Unfortunately for him, he chose a controversial project that has gained national attention.

This is helpful analysis. So, what happens now? Does the homeowner have a deadline to either tear the addition down or bring it into compliance?

It will definitely be appealed. That's been clear ever since they made this a political issue.

On what basis? There are 7 criteria that need to be used. As stated in the hearing, if any ONE of those criteria are not met, the appeal can be denied. The county applied the criteria, found several not met, and made its decision. BZA upheld the decision that the process was followed properly. And the 7 criteria give greater scrutiny to the project, like adverse effects on the neighbors.

What would be the basis for appeal? Just don’t like the decision? Thought modifying the project was such a hardship but able to find more money to hire a lawyer to fight?

Its time to stop throwing more money on bad decisions the HO made and move forward.

How many other setback permits did they grant that day?

And how many of those requests were well prepared and provided the appropriate documentation - vice telling the county to Google the width of siding.

[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:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Because the injection was always to the height and style, not to the structural integrity. As Courtney admitted at the hearing, the owner curing all of the violations would not actually address any of her concerns.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

And then she said that it would be less looming had it been built on the correct setback and that she supports change to the zoning laws.

The fact that the next door neighbor finds it uncomfortable to have a 30 foot high and 60 some foot long building very close to her property line is not terribly surprising. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment?

It illustrates that this issue never had anything to do with the minuscule setback violation. It was always about how she hated how the addition looked. She then weaponized her influence and connections to find violations that otherwise never would have been discovered to get the project shutdown. And she did that because she did not personally like completely lawful architectural design.

Are you saying that it would have been better to have never discovered the code violations? That could have ended up worse for the family living in a poorly constructed building.

Whether or not anyone liked the design has nothing to do with the fact that there were numerous problems and discrepancies with the project.

For whatever reason the homeowners wanted to build as big and as cheaply as possible. Inattention to detail, sloppy construction practices, and contracting with a company without a license were some of the causes of the issues with the building that were likely a result of trying to spend the very least amount possible. Unfortunately, this is a good illustration of what happens when someone is penny wise and pound foolish.

As a person who bought a house with a lot of horrible construction issues, I'm well aware of how much it sucks. It also was not discovered (apparently) in the permitting process. The issues occurring with the homeowner are frequent in construction projects, for better or worse. I'm all for building safety issues being addressed and the county doing that in a manner that is fair and consistent. Not in a manner that is a result of selective enforcement based on well-connected neighbors who don't like aesthetics of someone else's home addition and have no other way to stop it than to nitpick details that aren't actually the source of their own frustration.

As for the homeowner listing himself as the contractor, that was definitely a mistake. He was also advised to do so by a contractor who had his licensed revoked for telling his clients they had to do that. But I agree the homeowner is liable now for fixing the issues. I just hope he doesn't let the bullying about the design stop him from rebuilding the house he wants. If the neighbors want something more aesthetically pleasing, they're welcome to chip in to cover the additional cost of moving the addition or spreading it out. I strongly suspect they won't be willing to do that, which brings me back to the homeowner's right to build a cheap, ugly addition that he wants but because it works for him.

What's your evidence that the neighbors are well-connected?

As for fairness during inspections, there are several other issues that triggered the in depth scrutiny. He was always doomed after the wind bracing defects and failure to build to plan were discovered, even if he was within the setbacks. Mistakes cause additional scrutiny, not nosey neighbors.

The only thing that triggered additional scrutiny was Courtney’s temper tantrum that involved multiple county complaints and media appearances in local and national news.

Courtney’s ability to wield the media and local politicians to address her aesthetic concerns are demonstration of her connectedness.

Looks like the Courtney hater is back. They always try to deflect the issue of the poor quality and no compliant addition to her anger over it. Most people would feel the same way she does if their neighbor did the same thing as this homeowner did.

It’s about how the enforcement of the poor work quality was triggered only because of her anger over aesthetics, not any legitimate concern about workmanship.

I’m 100% sure that if there was poor work quality but a design visually unoffensive to Courtney, she wouldn’t have given a shit.

Who cares what the neighbors’ motives were? All that matters is that the homeowner cut corners and the structure was not up to code. For that, the homeowner has no one but himself to blame.

I do! A neighbor shouldn’t be able to wield the county to shutdown construction of a house they find visually offensive. It’s an abuse of power and it’s not how government should work. It’s in illustration of unequal enforcement driven by improper motives.

[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:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Because the injection was always to the height and style, not to the structural integrity. As Courtney admitted at the hearing, the owner curing all of the violations would not actually address any of her concerns.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

And then she said that it would be less looming had it been built on the correct setback and that she supports change to the zoning laws.

The fact that the next door neighbor finds it uncomfortable to have a 30 foot high and 60 some foot long building very close to her property line is not terribly surprising. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment?

It illustrates that this issue never had anything to do with the minuscule setback violation. It was always about how she hated how the addition looked. She then weaponized her influence and connections to find violations that otherwise never would have been discovered to get the project shutdown. And she did that because she did not personally like completely lawful architectural design.

Are you saying that it would have been better to have never discovered the code violations? That could have ended up worse for the family living in a poorly constructed building.

Whether or not anyone liked the design has nothing to do with the fact that there were numerous problems and discrepancies with the project.

For whatever reason the homeowners wanted to build as big and as cheaply as possible. Inattention to detail, sloppy construction practices, and contracting with a company without a license were some of the causes of the issues with the building that were likely a result of trying to spend the very least amount possible. Unfortunately, this is a good illustration of what happens when someone is penny wise and pound foolish.

As a person who bought a house with a lot of horrible construction issues, I'm well aware of how much it sucks. It also was not discovered (apparently) in the permitting process. The issues occurring with the homeowner are frequent in construction projects, for better or worse. I'm all for building safety issues being addressed and the county doing that in a manner that is fair and consistent. Not in a manner that is a result of selective enforcement based on well-connected neighbors who don't like aesthetics of someone else's home addition and have no other way to stop it than to nitpick details that aren't actually the source of their own frustration.

As for the homeowner listing himself as the contractor, that was definitely a mistake. He was also advised to do so by a contractor who had his licensed revoked for telling his clients they had to do that. But I agree the homeowner is liable now for fixing the issues. I just hope he doesn't let the bullying about the design stop him from rebuilding the house he wants. If the neighbors want something more aesthetically pleasing, they're welcome to chip in to cover the additional cost of moving the addition or spreading it out. I strongly suspect they won't be willing to do that, which brings me back to the homeowner's right to build a cheap, ugly addition that he wants but because it works for him.

What's your evidence that the neighbors are well-connected?

As for fairness during inspections, there are several other issues that triggered the in depth scrutiny. He was always doomed after the wind bracing defects and failure to build to plan were discovered, even if he was within the setbacks. Mistakes cause additional scrutiny, not nosey neighbors.

The only thing that triggered additional scrutiny was Courtney’s temper tantrum that involved multiple county complaints and media appearances in local and national news.

Courtney’s ability to wield the media and local politicians to address her aesthetic concerns are demonstration of her connectedness.

Looks like the Courtney hater is back. They always try to deflect the issue of the poor quality and no compliant addition to her anger over it. Most people would feel the same way she does if their neighbor did the same thing as this homeowner did.

It’s about how the enforcement of the poor work quality was triggered only because of her anger over aesthetics, not any legitimate concern about workmanship.

I’m 100% sure that if there was poor work quality but a design visually unoffensive to Courtney, she wouldn’t have given a shit.

Who cares what the neighbors’ motives were? All that matters is that the homeowner cut corners and the structure was not up to code. For that, the homeowner has no one but himself to blame.

I do! A neighbor shouldn’t be able to wield the county to shutdown construction of a house they find visually offensive. It’s an abuse of power and it’s not how government should work. It’s in illustration of unequal enforcement driven by improper motives.

It wasn't shut down because it was offensive. It was shutdown because poor construction led to deviation from approved plans and safety concerns.

[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:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Because the injection was always to the height and style, not to the structural integrity. As Courtney admitted at the hearing, the owner curing all of the violations would not actually address any of her concerns.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

And then she said that it would be less looming had it been built on the correct setback and that she supports change to the zoning laws.

The fact that the next door neighbor finds it uncomfortable to have a 30 foot high and 60 some foot long building very close to her property line is not terribly surprising. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment?

It illustrates that this issue never had anything to do with the minuscule setback violation. It was always about how she hated how the addition looked. She then weaponized her influence and connections to find violations that otherwise never would have been discovered to get the project shutdown. And she did that because she did not personally like completely lawful architectural design.

Are you saying that it would have been better to have never discovered the code violations? That could have ended up worse for the family living in a poorly constructed building.

Whether or not anyone liked the design has nothing to do with the fact that there were numerous problems and discrepancies with the project.

For whatever reason the homeowners wanted to build as big and as cheaply as possible. Inattention to detail, sloppy construction practices, and contracting with a company without a license were some of the causes of the issues with the building that were likely a result of trying to spend the very least amount possible. Unfortunately, this is a good illustration of what happens when someone is penny wise and pound foolish.

As a person who bought a house with a lot of horrible construction issues, I'm well aware of how much it sucks. It also was not discovered (apparently) in the permitting process. The issues occurring with the homeowner are frequent in construction projects, for better or worse. I'm all for building safety issues being addressed and the county doing that in a manner that is fair and consistent. Not in a manner that is a result of selective enforcement based on well-connected neighbors who don't like aesthetics of someone else's home addition and have no other way to stop it than to nitpick details that aren't actually the source of their own frustration.

As for the homeowner listing himself as the contractor, that was definitely a mistake. He was also advised to do so by a contractor who had his licensed revoked for telling his clients they had to do that. But I agree the homeowner is liable now for fixing the issues. I just hope he doesn't let the bullying about the design stop him from rebuilding the house he wants. If the neighbors want something more aesthetically pleasing, they're welcome to chip in to cover the additional cost of moving the addition or spreading it out. I strongly suspect they won't be willing to do that, which brings me back to the homeowner's right to build a cheap, ugly addition that he wants but because it works for him.

What's your evidence that the neighbors are well-connected?

As for fairness during inspections, there are several other issues that triggered the in depth scrutiny. He was always doomed after the wind bracing defects and failure to build to plan were discovered, even if he was within the setbacks. Mistakes cause additional scrutiny, not nosey neighbors.

The only thing that triggered additional scrutiny was Courtney’s temper tantrum that involved multiple county complaints and media appearances in local and national news.

Courtney’s ability to wield the media and local politicians to address her aesthetic concerns are demonstration of her connectedness.

Looks like the Courtney hater is back. They always try to deflect the issue of the poor quality and no compliant addition to her anger over it. Most people would feel the same way she does if their neighbor did the same thing as this homeowner did.

It’s about how the enforcement of the poor work quality was triggered only because of her anger over aesthetics, not any legitimate concern about workmanship.

I’m 100% sure that if there was poor work quality but a design visually unoffensive to Courtney, she wouldn’t have given a shit.

Who cares what the neighbors’ motives were? All that matters is that the homeowner cut corners and the structure was not up to code. For that, the homeowner has no one but himself to blame.

I do! A neighbor shouldn’t be able to wield the county to shutdown construction of a house they find visually offensive. It’s an abuse of power and it’s not how government should work. It’s in illustration of unequal enforcement driven by improper motives.

It wasn't shut down because it was offensive. It was shutdown because poor construction led to deviation from approved plans and safety concerns.

Exactly. Why the neighbors reported the construction doesn’t matter. If the homeowner didn’t deviate from the approved plans and cut corners, then the construction could’ve continued. The homeowner has no one but himself to blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Because the injection was always to the height and style, not to the structural integrity. As Courtney admitted at the hearing, the owner curing all of the violations would not actually address any of her concerns.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

And then she said that it would be less looming had it been built on the correct setback and that she supports change to the zoning laws.

The fact that the next door neighbor finds it uncomfortable to have a 30 foot high and 60 some foot long building very close to her property line is not terribly surprising. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment?

It illustrates that this issue never had anything to do with the minuscule setback violation. It was always about how she hated how the addition looked. She then weaponized her influence and connections to find violations that otherwise never would have been discovered to get the project shutdown. And she did that because she did not personally like completely lawful architectural design.

Are you saying that it would have been better to have never discovered the code violations? That could have ended up worse for the family living in a poorly constructed building.

Whether or not anyone liked the design has nothing to do with the fact that there were numerous problems and discrepancies with the project.

For whatever reason the homeowners wanted to build as big and as cheaply as possible. Inattention to detail, sloppy construction practices, and contracting with a company without a license were some of the causes of the issues with the building that were likely a result of trying to spend the very least amount possible. Unfortunately, this is a good illustration of what happens when someone is penny wise and pound foolish.

As a person who bought a house with a lot of horrible construction issues, I'm well aware of how much it sucks. It also was not discovered (apparently) in the permitting process. The issues occurring with the homeowner are frequent in construction projects, for better or worse. I'm all for building safety issues being addressed and the county doing that in a manner that is fair and consistent. Not in a manner that is a result of selective enforcement based on well-connected neighbors who don't like aesthetics of someone else's home addition and have no other way to stop it than to nitpick details that aren't actually the source of their own frustration.

As for the homeowner listing himself as the contractor, that was definitely a mistake. He was also advised to do so by a contractor who had his licensed revoked for telling his clients they had to do that. But I agree the homeowner is liable now for fixing the issues. I just hope he doesn't let the bullying about the design stop him from rebuilding the house he wants. If the neighbors want something more aesthetically pleasing, they're welcome to chip in to cover the additional cost of moving the addition or spreading it out. I strongly suspect they won't be willing to do that, which brings me back to the homeowner's right to build a cheap, ugly addition that he wants but because it works for him.

What's your evidence that the neighbors are well-connected?

As for fairness during inspections, there are several other issues that triggered the in depth scrutiny. He was always doomed after the wind bracing defects and failure to build to plan were discovered, even if he was within the setbacks. Mistakes cause additional scrutiny, not nosey neighbors.

The only thing that triggered additional scrutiny was Courtney’s temper tantrum that involved multiple county complaints and media appearances in local and national news.

Courtney’s ability to wield the media and local politicians to address her aesthetic concerns are demonstration of her connectedness.

Looks like the Courtney hater is back. They always try to deflect the issue of the poor quality and no compliant addition to her anger over it. Most people would feel the same way she does if their neighbor did the same thing as this homeowner did.

It’s about how the enforcement of the poor work quality was triggered only because of her anger over aesthetics, not any legitimate concern about workmanship.

I’m 100% sure that if there was poor work quality but a design visually unoffensive to Courtney, she wouldn’t have given a shit.

Who cares what the neighbors’ motives were? All that matters is that the homeowner cut corners and the structure was not up to code. For that, the homeowner has no one but himself to blame.

I do! A neighbor shouldn’t be able to wield the county to shutdown construction of a house they find visually offensive. It’s an abuse of power and it’s not how government should work. It’s in illustration of unequal enforcement driven by improper motives.

It wasn't shut down because it was offensive. It was shutdown because poor construction led to deviation from approved plans and safety concerns.

Exactly. Why the neighbors reported the construction doesn’t matter. If the homeowner didn’t deviate from the approved plans and cut corners, then the construction could’ve continued. The homeowner has no one but himself to blame.

Right. I don’t understand how the previous poster can’t understand this.

[Anonymous]

Here is approved version of his plans

https://www.reddit.com/r/nova/s/S5CNcaWpeX

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Because the injection was always to the height and style, not to the structural integrity. As Courtney admitted at the hearing, the owner curing all of the violations would not actually address any of her concerns.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

And then she said that it would be less looming had it been built on the correct setback and that she supports change to the zoning laws.

The fact that the next door neighbor finds it uncomfortable to have a 30 foot high and 60 some foot long building very close to her property line is not terribly surprising. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment?

It illustrates that this issue never had anything to do with the minuscule setback violation. It was always about how she hated how the addition looked. She then weaponized her influence and connections to find violations that otherwise never would have been discovered to get the project shutdown. And she did that because she did not personally like completely lawful architectural design.

Looking at the photos, I think any homeowner would be concerned about the size and weight of that structure, so close to the property line, with a flimsy retaining wall holding up the land on the property line.

[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:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Because the injection was always to the height and style, not to the structural integrity. As Courtney admitted at the hearing, the owner curing all of the violations would not actually address any of her concerns.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

And then she said that it would be less looming had it been built on the correct setback and that she supports change to the zoning laws.

The fact that the next door neighbor finds it uncomfortable to have a 30 foot high and 60 some foot long building very close to her property line is not terribly surprising. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment?

It illustrates that this issue never had anything to do with the minuscule setback violation. It was always about how she hated how the addition looked. She then weaponized her influence and connections to find violations that otherwise never would have been discovered to get the project shutdown. And she did that because she did not personally like completely lawful architectural design.

Looking at the photos, I think any homeowner would be concerned about the size and weight of that structure, so close to the property line, with a flimsy retaining wall holding up the land on the property line.

They weren't. It was a post hoc rationale.

[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:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Because the injection was always to the height and style, not to the structural integrity. As Courtney admitted at the hearing, the owner curing all of the violations would not actually address any of her concerns.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

And then she said that it would be less looming had it been built on the correct setback and that she supports change to the zoning laws.

The fact that the next door neighbor finds it uncomfortable to have a 30 foot high and 60 some foot long building very close to her property line is not terribly surprising. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment?

It illustrates that this issue never had anything to do with the minuscule setback violation. It was always about how she hated how the addition looked. She then weaponized her influence and connections to find violations that otherwise never would have been discovered to get the project shutdown. And she did that because she did not personally like completely lawful architectural design.

Are you saying that it would have been better to have never discovered the code violations? That could have ended up worse for the family living in a poorly constructed building.

Whether or not anyone liked the design has nothing to do with the fact that there were numerous problems and discrepancies with the project.

For whatever reason the homeowners wanted to build as big and as cheaply as possible. Inattention to detail, sloppy construction practices, and contracting with a company without a license were some of the causes of the issues with the building that were likely a result of trying to spend the very least amount possible. Unfortunately, this is a good illustration of what happens when someone is penny wise and pound foolish.

As a person who bought a house with a lot of horrible construction issues, I'm well aware of how much it sucks. It also was not discovered (apparently) in the permitting process. The issues occurring with the homeowner are frequent in construction projects, for better or worse. I'm all for building safety issues being addressed and the county doing that in a manner that is fair and consistent. Not in a manner that is a result of selective enforcement based on well-connected neighbors who don't like aesthetics of someone else's home addition and have no other way to stop it than to nitpick details that aren't actually the source of their own frustration.

As for the homeowner listing himself as the contractor, that was definitely a mistake. He was also advised to do so by a contractor who had his licensed revoked for telling his clients they had to do that. But I agree the homeowner is liable now for fixing the issues. I just hope he doesn't let the bullying about the design stop him from rebuilding the house he wants. If the neighbors want something more aesthetically pleasing, they're welcome to chip in to cover the additional cost of moving the addition or spreading it out. I strongly suspect they won't be willing to do that, which brings me back to the homeowner's right to build a cheap, ugly addition that he wants but because it works for him.

What's your evidence that the neighbors are well-connected?

As for fairness during inspections, there are several other issues that triggered the in depth scrutiny. He was always doomed after the wind bracing defects and failure to build to plan were discovered, even if he was within the setbacks. Mistakes cause additional scrutiny, not nosey neighbors.

The only thing that triggered additional scrutiny was Courtney’s temper tantrum that involved multiple county complaints and media appearances in local and national news.

Courtney’s ability to wield the media and local politicians to address her aesthetic concerns are demonstration of her connectedness.

Sure - perhaps the neighbors complaints to the county brought more scrutiny. That is within the neighbor’s rights to complain. It’s not all about the HOs rights.

The county did their job by inspecting. Even without the complaints, the county would have performed multiple inspections. At the hearing, the county said it was during one of the inspections that something felt off with the setback, that’s why they required the windbracing inspections and surveys.

The complaints weren't about actual violations, at least until Courtney apparently retained a lawyer to find violations that didn't actually address her concerns. Her initial complaints to the county were all dismissed, which enraged her and led her to go to the media. Only then was heightened scrutiny placed on the property and previously unknown violations not related to the height and "wall effect" were discovered.

This entire dispute is about how the neighbors don't like the ugly house. The neighbors (Courtney) were able to leverage connections to get heightened scrutiny placed on the homeowner, which led to the county discovering issues that have nothing to do with the ugliness that triggered the underlying complaint. Absent the heightened scrutiny, these would have gone unnoticed by the county, which is what happens like 90+% of the time.

It's just an example of county residents feeling as though the county should be their personal HOA, even when they knowingly moved to a community without one. I, for one, don't want to live in a society where my connected neighbor gets to wield the local government to dictate someone else's aesthetic choices on their own home. If I want to live in a place that requires cohesive architecture, I'll be sure to move to one of the MANY HOA communities in Northern Virginia.

Does anyone else get the strong impression that the poster who kerps attacking the neighbor by name is actually the homeowner?