Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 probably the homeowner.

[Anonymous]

There’s no way that massive addition would meet building codes even if it could meet setback requirements.

[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: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.

I am sure they were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s no way that massive addition would meet building codes even if it could meet setback requirements.

It literally did as designed.

[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.

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

I'm not the homeowner (though feel free to believe I am). I'm a middle-aged white lady who intentionally moved into a non-HOA neighborhood only to learn that my miserable neighbors believe the county should be their personal HOA. I've never built an addition, always get my work permitted, and have a traditionally manicured suburban home, but I think it's gross, busybody, Karen-ish behavior that has no place.

[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.

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?

I'm not the homeowner (though feel free to believe I am). I'm a middle-aged white lady who intentionally moved into a non-HOA neighborhood only to learn that my miserable neighbors believe the county should be their personal HOA. I've never built an addition, always get my work permitted, and have a traditionally manicured suburban home, but I think it's gross, busybody, Karen-ish behavior that has no place.

That Econo Lodge sized “addition” is the build quality of a kid’s tree house. The owner just thought he could build whatever he wanted and seek forgiveness after the fact. Thanks to the BZA for denying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I'm not the homeowner (though feel free to believe I am). I'm a middle-aged white lady who intentionally moved into a non-HOA neighborhood only to learn that my miserable neighbors believe the county should be their personal HOA. I've never built an addition, always get my work permitted, and have a traditionally manicured suburban home, but I think it's gross, busybody, Karen-ish behavior that has no place.

If you like this project so much, maybe you can offer to buy the house next door. Since you're so okay with it, you would probably enjoy it and would be happy to help out a neighbor.

[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.

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?

I'm not the homeowner (though feel free to believe I am). I'm a middle-aged white lady who intentionally moved into a non-HOA neighborhood only to learn that my miserable neighbors believe the county should be their personal HOA. I've never built an addition, always get my work permitted, and have a traditionally manicured suburban home, but I think it's gross, busybody, Karen-ish behavior that has no place.

If you like this project so much, maybe you can offer to buy the house next door. Since you're so okay with it, you would probably enjoy it and would be happy to help out a neighbor.

I'll definitely participate in a crowdfund to help him rebuild his house 8 inches narrower. Greenbriar is too far for my daily DC car commute, though.

[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.

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?

I'm not the homeowner (though feel free to believe I am). I'm a middle-aged white lady who intentionally moved into a non-HOA neighborhood only to learn that my miserable neighbors believe the county should be their personal HOA. I've never built an addition, always get my work permitted, and have a traditionally manicured suburban home, but I think it's gross, busybody, Karen-ish behavior that has no place.

If you like this project so much, maybe you can offer to buy the house next door. Since you're so okay with it, you would probably enjoy it and would be happy to help out a neighbor.

I'll definitely participate in a crowdfund to help him rebuild his house 8 inches narrower. Greenbriar is too far for my daily DC car commute, though.

Right. You would not want live next to that addition if someone paid you to. If it was so fine with you, you’d be willing to buy that house next door, commute or no commute.

It’s really easy to opine about what a great addition this homeowner wants to build when you don’t live in the community.

It really doesn’t matter why or how attention was brought to the project. The fact is that it was not built following the plans that were submitted to the County and it had a number of serious construction issues. Those are really the only facts that mattered in the BZA hearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no way that massive addition would meet building codes even if it could meet setback requirements.

It literally did as designed.

It literally was not built according to the approved plans or following building codes for wind bracing.

Sooo...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no way that massive addition would meet building codes even if it could meet setback requirements.

It literally did as designed.

It literally was not built according to the approved plans or following building codes for wind bracing.

Sooo...

The approved plan was equally ugly and something all the neighbors would hate just as much! So yes, that addition COULD have met all the relevant codes.

[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.

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?

I'm not the homeowner (though feel free to believe I am). I'm a middle-aged white lady who intentionally moved into a non-HOA neighborhood only to learn that my miserable neighbors believe the county should be their personal HOA. I've never built an addition, always get my work permitted, and have a traditionally manicured suburban home, but I think it's gross, busybody, Karen-ish behavior that has no place.

If you like this project so much, maybe you can offer to buy the house next door. Since you're so okay with it, you would probably enjoy it and would be happy to help out a neighbor.

I'll definitely participate in a crowdfund to help him rebuild his house 8 inches narrower. Greenbriar is too far for my daily DC car commute, though.

Right. You would not want live next to that addition if someone paid you to. If it was so fine with you, you’d be willing to buy that house next door, commute or no commute.

It’s really easy to opine about what a great addition this homeowner wants to build when you don’t live in the community.

It really doesn’t matter why or how attention was brought to the project. The fact is that it was not built following the plans that were submitted to the County and it had a number of serious construction issues. Those are really the only facts that mattered in the BZA hearing.

Nope I don’t care. I live on the same block as a horrendous, bizarre totally out-of-place home. The entire house is bright green with metal siding and a metal roof that are monochromatic. I personally hate it. But I would never try to control someone’s hormone design or feel entitled to do so, even if it harms my property values or screws up my view.

As has been discussed, this came under the scrutiny of the county after Courtney’s multiple complaints about aesthetics were discussed. Courtney then threw a tantrum about the aesthetics, which unjustifiably triggered heightened scrutiny regarding the structure. Those would have gone unnoticed (and regularly go unnoticed) by the county but for Courtney’s aesthetic vendetta.

If we want to start a campaign to get the county to scrutinize wind bracing more heavily across the board, then be my guest. But I’m always going to object when the violations were found only because of a tantrum about aesthetics. The county shouldn’t be making its regulatory and investigative decisions on such bases.

[Anonymous]

FWIW, I think Courtney is extremely courageous. She should be applauded for speaking up and finding the protocols to bring this issue up with county authorities. And she did it in a way that ultimately allowed all FFX residents to hear an open, professional discussion/debate on the issue. This discussion valuable to all of us. And the consequent board decision made sense. I say : Three cheers for Courtney! (And for common sense.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I'm not the homeowner (though feel free to believe I am). I'm a middle-aged white lady who intentionally moved into a non-HOA neighborhood only to learn that my miserable neighbors believe the county should be their personal HOA. I've never built an addition, always get my work permitted, and have a traditionally manicured suburban home, but I think it's gross, busybody, Karen-ish behavior that has no place.

If you like this project so much, maybe you can offer to buy the house next door. Since you're so okay with it, you would probably enjoy it and would be happy to help out a neighbor.

I'll definitely participate in a crowdfund to help him rebuild his house 8 inches narrower. Greenbriar is too far for my daily DC car commute, though.

Right. You would not want live next to that addition if someone paid you to. If it was so fine with you, you’d be willing to buy that house next door, commute or no commute.

It’s really easy to opine about what a great addition this homeowner wants to build when you don’t live in the community.

It really doesn’t matter why or how attention was brought to the project. The fact is that it was not built following the plans that were submitted to the County and it had a number of serious construction issues. Those are really the only facts that mattered in the BZA hearing.

Nope I don’t care. I live on the same block as a horrendous, bizarre totally out-of-place home. The entire house is bright green with metal siding and a metal roof that are monochromatic. I personally hate it. But I would never try to control someone’s hormone design or feel entitled to do so, even if it harms my property values or screws up my view.

As has been discussed, this came under the scrutiny of the county after Courtney’s multiple complaints about aesthetics were discussed. Courtney then threw a tantrum about the aesthetics, which unjustifiably triggered heightened scrutiny regarding the structure. Those would have gone unnoticed (and regularly go unnoticed) by the county but for Courtney’s aesthetic vendetta.

If we want to start a campaign to get the county to scrutinize wind bracing more heavily across the board, then be my guest. But I’m always going to object when the violations were found only because of a tantrum about aesthetics. The county shouldn’t be making its regulatory and investigative decisions on such bases.

It isn't the aesthetics. The county doesn't care when people build ugly things on black and brown areas. The offense was living among the whites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I'm not the homeowner (though feel free to believe I am). I'm a middle-aged white lady who intentionally moved into a non-HOA neighborhood only to learn that my miserable neighbors believe the county should be their personal HOA. I've never built an addition, always get my work permitted, and have a traditionally manicured suburban home, but I think it's gross, busybody, Karen-ish behavior that has no place.

If you like this project so much, maybe you can offer to buy the house next door. Since you're so okay with it, you would probably enjoy it and would be happy to help out a neighbor.

I'll definitely participate in a crowdfund to help him rebuild his house 8 inches narrower. Greenbriar is too far for my daily DC car commute, though.

Right. You would not want live next to that addition if someone paid you to. If it was so fine with you, you’d be willing to buy that house next door, commute or no commute.

It’s really easy to opine about what a great addition this homeowner wants to build when you don’t live in the community.

It really doesn’t matter why or how attention was brought to the project. The fact is that it was not built following the plans that were submitted to the County and it had a number of serious construction issues. Those are really the only facts that mattered in the BZA hearing.

Nope I don’t care. I live on the same block as a horrendous, bizarre totally out-of-place home. The entire house is bright green with metal siding and a metal roof that are monochromatic. I personally hate it. But I would never try to control someone’s hormone design or feel entitled to do so, even if it harms my property values or screws up my view.

As has been discussed, this came under the scrutiny of the county after Courtney’s multiple complaints about aesthetics were discussed. Courtney then threw a tantrum about the aesthetics, which unjustifiably triggered heightened scrutiny regarding the structure. Those would have gone unnoticed (and regularly go unnoticed) by the county but for Courtney’s aesthetic vendetta.

If we want to start a campaign to get the county to scrutinize wind bracing more heavily across the board, then be my guest. But I’m always going to object when the violations were found only because of a tantrum about aesthetics. The county shouldn’t be making its regulatory and investigative decisions on such bases.

It isn't the aesthetics. The county doesn't care when people build ugly things on black and brown areas. The offense was living among the whites.

People in those areas should also demand better. Perhaps this saga will inspire others to protect their communities from shoddy and dangerous construction.