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.
The community never cared about dangerous construction. It cares about ugly construction.
And when the county inspected the construction to what was causing the furor, it failed on several fronts. If you are going to build something big, ugly, and simple you can't just expect to get a pass on the basics because you don't know what you are doing.
Whether the county cares about the construction quality of a property shouldn’t depend on whether you have a busybody neighbor who thinks she can dictate others’ design choices.
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.
But it didn't meet the codes as built.
Literally.
But the question is whether the design could meet the building codes without the setback violation. It definitely could. Indeed, it did.
No.
It "definitely " and "literally" did not.
It was not built to the approved plans.
You could set that thing in a 5 acre lot by itself with no neighbors, and as built it did not meet building codes and did not follow the approved plans, setback or not.
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.
There is zero chance this person who keeps attacking the neighbor by name is not the homeowner or connected to the homeowner.
Believe whatever you want, but no, I'm not. I just grew up in a neighborhood with an absurd HOA, and my dad ran as an HOA opposition candidate to promote freedom. So I've been really invested in freedom of aesthetic choice for the exterior of your home since literally childhood.
Sorry for your childhood trauma re home exteriors but you don’t need to hijack the thread with post after post on your data point of one. We get it.
I haven’t hijacked the post on my data point. I’ve stuck strictly discussing this home addition until someone accused me of being the homeowner, so I explained why I cared.
You "literally" keep reposting nonsense arguments and attacking private citizens by name.
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.
There is zero chance this person who keeps attacking the neighbor by name is not the homeowner or connected to the homeowner.
Believe whatever you want, but no, I'm not. I just grew up in a neighborhood with an absurd HOA, and my dad ran as an HOA opposition candidate to promote freedom. So I've been really invested in freedom of aesthetic choice for the exterior of your home since literally childhood.
Sorry for your childhood trauma re home exteriors but you don’t need to hijack the thread with post after post on your data point of one. We get it.
I haven’t hijacked the post on my data point. I’ve stuck strictly discussing this home addition until someone accused me of being the homeowner, so I explained why I cared.
"how can I make this long thread all about me me me...."
Let me Quote John Wall the famous Basketball Player for Wizzards.
When he moved to the DC area he bought a very large home in Potomac on two acreas that already existed. He said I dont understand people who build large homes or expand smaller homes into larger homes. There are plenty of large homes in the DC area, just buy one of them.
John Wall wanted larger home as he was only 19 when drafted by Wizzards, he wanted to move his Mom in and he has a sister and brother. He also wanted a house with a full sized basketball court he could practice that was far enough neighbors so not to bother them.
Wow that 19 year old has 10 x the common sense this guy building on top of his neighbors .
Anonymous wrote:Hit submit too soon, meant to say it will be a dereliction of duties if the county approves this anywhere near its current form.
This guy tried the ask for forgiveness route and I hope the gamble doesn’t pay off.
The "form" was already approved because it met the building requirements. The problem is that the owner/builder screwed up in some small, but legally significant, ways.
Worst case, the owner could tear it down and rebuild it with the wall moved 6 inches over. The height and design are otherwise fine.
I hope this happens.
I'm highly skeptical you'd end with something better constructed if they have to go this route. I think it is more likely they'd cut more corners to make up some of the cost involved with demolition and reconstruction.
Right. And I imagine the inspectors will be watching carefully. So if cheapness leads to shoddy construction and mistakes, they will have to be fixed. Which typically ends up costing more than doing it right the first time.
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.
But it didn't meet the codes as built.
Literally.
But the question is whether the design could meet the building codes without the setback violation. It definitely could. Indeed, it did.
No.
It "definitely " and "literally" did not.
It was not built to the approved plans.
You could set that thing in a 5 acre lot by itself with no neighbors, and as built it did not meet building codes and did not follow the approved plans, setback or not.
This is just wrong. The written plans complied. That’s why it was approved.
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.
There is zero chance this person who keeps attacking the neighbor by name is not the homeowner or connected to the homeowner.
Believe whatever you want, but no, I'm not. I just grew up in a neighborhood with an absurd HOA, and my dad ran as an HOA opposition candidate to promote freedom. So I've been really invested in freedom of aesthetic choice for the exterior of your home since literally childhood.
Sorry for your childhood trauma re home exteriors but you don’t need to hijack the thread with post after post on your data point of one. We get it.
I haven’t hijacked the post on my data point. I’ve stuck strictly discussing this home addition until someone accused me of being the homeowner, so I explained why I cared.
"how can I make this long thread all about me me me...."
Y’all are the ones accusing me of being the homeowner and requesting I prove otherwise. I didn’t make a single comment about my personal background until then.
I can’t win. Either I’m the homeowner with an invalid opinion or I’m “making the thread all about [me]” because I disagree.
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.
There is zero chance this person who keeps attacking the neighbor by name is not the homeowner or connected to the homeowner.
Believe whatever you want, but no, I'm not. I just grew up in a neighborhood with an absurd HOA, and my dad ran as an HOA opposition candidate to promote freedom. So I've been really invested in freedom of aesthetic choice for the exterior of your home since literally childhood.
Sorry for your childhood trauma re home exteriors but you don’t need to hijack the thread with post after post on your data point of one. We get it.
I haven’t hijacked the post on my data point. I’ve stuck strictly discussing this home addition until someone accused me of being the homeowner, so I explained why I cared.
You "literally" keep reposting nonsense arguments and attacking private citizens by name.
“Private citizens”? Courtney is the one who went to the media multiple times and complained with her own name attached. She is reasonably subjected to private scrutiny.
I continue to believe you’re Courtney. And if you’re not, then you’re hijacking the thread and making it all about you.
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.
But it didn't meet the codes as built.
Literally.
But the question is whether the design could meet the building codes without the setback violation. It definitely could. Indeed, it did.
No.
It "definitely " and "literally" did not.
It was not built to the approved plans.
You could set that thing in a 5 acre lot by itself with no neighbors, and as built it did not meet building codes and did not follow the approved plans, setback or not.
This is just wrong. The written plans complied. That’s why it was approved.
Not PP. You both are saying the same thing. The written plans were approved. What was actually built was different from the written plans the county had approved, both with the setback but also floorplan. If homeowner had just hired a more reputable company that didn't cut corners, he wouldn't be in this pickleas there would not be anything the county could do. Homeowner has nobody to blame but himself.
Anonymous wrote:One thing that’s super interesting about this hearing is that it turns out the homeowner actually did use a contractor who misrepresented himself as licensed but previously had his licensed taken away for telling people they had to put down owner as contractor and pull their own permits. That’s a huge mitigating factor for the homeowner.
The HO is shady. If he thought he was using a legit contractor, he should never signed the permitting paperwork with that he was contractor. He certified that he was the contractor in all the permitting paperwork. Not buying is naive persona
Not everyone has the same sophistication or experience as you. It takes most of us learning our lesson the hard way to start checking things like that.
So this is a great chance for the homeowner to learn the hard way— a complete rebuild. Then he will learn.
I can’t imagine signing a contract with a GC whom I hadn’t googled so I could check out online info. Also, did they not even ask the GC for names of former clients they could talk to?
This was a $200,000 project they were committing to and it didn’t occur to them to check out the previous work and background of the GC. Unbelievable!
Speculating, but I would bet he knew he wasn't licensed and went with him anyway. Either because of a cheap price, or nobody licensed (ethical) would take the project, or both. Soto's business address isn't in the immediate area so I'm curious how he even found him. Like this clearly wasn't some door to door solicitation.
Further speculating, but I wonder if they were banking on avoiding inspections completely. At the hearing they talked about the extension on the back of the house for which they pulled a permit, but since no inspections were ever scheduled, that permit became void, even though they did go through with building that project. They simply never set up the inspections with the county, so none ever took place.
In this thread there are a number of posts which note that the county might never have known about the issues with the project had the neighbors not complained.
Is it possible that the homeowners thought they could do the same thing they had done with the extension on the back of the house and just avoid the inspections?
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.
There is zero chance this person who keeps attacking the neighbor by name is not the homeowner or connected to the homeowner.
Believe whatever you want, but no, I'm not. I just grew up in a neighborhood with an absurd HOA, and my dad ran as an HOA opposition candidate to promote freedom. So I've been really invested in freedom of aesthetic choice for the exterior of your home since literally childhood.
Sorry for your childhood trauma re home exteriors but you don’t need to hijack the thread with post after post on your data point of one. We get it.
I haven’t hijacked the post on my data point. I’ve stuck strictly discussing this home addition until someone accused me of being the homeowner, so I explained why I cared.
You "literally" keep reposting nonsense arguments and attacking private citizens by name.
“Private citizens”? Courtney is the one who went to the media multiple times and complained with her own name attached. She is reasonably subjected to private scrutiny.
I continue to believe you’re Courtney. And if you’re not, then you’re hijacking the thread and making it all about you.
You do know that several people are posting here in support of the County.
I’m not the previous poster here, but I have also been “accused” of being Courtney, so it appears that there are some who believe that anyone who supports the County must be Courtney, but that just isn’t the case.
I personally support the county because I live in a similar community to Greenbrier and I believe that individual property rights need to be balanced with the rights of neighbors in the surrounding community, especially when houses are on relatively small lots. Not to the extent of an HOA which dictates color choices and what style siding or roofing you can have, but more to take into account health, safety, quality of life issues.
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.
But it didn't meet the codes as built.
Literally.
But the question is whether the design could meet the building codes without the setback violation. It definitely could. Indeed, it did.
No.
It "definitely " and "literally" did not.
It was not built to the approved plans.
You could set that thing in a 5 acre lot by itself with no neighbors, and as built it did not meet building codes and did not follow the approved plans, setback or not.
This is just wrong. The written plans complied. That’s why it was approved.
You two are arguing about different things. Both of you are correct, but you are not saying the same things.
Person 1 - states the written plans complied with county zoning and were approved. This is true, but note the HO had an error in the plans he submitted to the county, and was subsequently approved.
Person 2 - states while plans were approved, the HO did not BUILD to the approved plans. This is also true.
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.
But it didn't meet the codes as built.
Literally.
But the question is whether the design could meet the building codes without the setback violation. It definitely could. Indeed, it did.
No.
It "definitely " and "literally" did not.
It was not built to the approved plans.
You could set that thing in a 5 acre lot by itself with no neighbors, and as built it did not meet building codes and did not follow the approved plans, setback or not.
This is just wrong. The written plans complied. That’s why it was approved.
You two are arguing about different things. Both of you are correct, but you are not saying the same things.
Person 1 - states the written plans complied with county zoning and were approved. This is true, but note the HO had an error in the plans he submitted to the county, and was subsequently approved.
Person 2 - states while plans were approved, the HO did not BUILD to the approved plans. This is also true.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}