Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


I didn't say people would actively want to live next to a house like this. But unless you have an extraordinary budget, you're not going to get everything you want. The aesthetics of the neighboring house is rarely on someone's list of "must haves." Location, functionality, and cost are. It isn't going to take much for someone focused on those aspects to overlook the neighboring house. Any impact on price is going to be far closer to 5% than the absurd figure of 25% that was mentioned earlier.

I'm curious, though, why you think shade precludes someone from being able to enjoy their yard. Would you feel the same way about a tall tree blocking sunlight?


A tall tree fits in with the aesthetic of a mature neighborhood. A hideous rectangular building that looks like an apartment building does not.

+1 A tree is something beautiful. A tree will help mitigate water runoff. A hideous rectangular building adds to runoff problems. A tree provides some privacy. An apartment building with windows means no privacy from neighbors (of whom there will be more because . . . apartment building). A tree doesn't create noise or drive more cars that are on the street. A tree provides cooling shade through evapotranspiration. A building produces heat because it absorbs and reemits solar radiation. Air conditioning units and more cars contribute to a heat island. This is why cities are generally hotter. A major reason people move to the suburbs is to enjoy a yard with more green area and cooler temperatures (because of the green area).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see the issue in this. They basically took the house and added two stories onto the side part of the house. If you look at the drone images they all have that long side, including the complaining neighbor. Our neighbors did horrible remodels that impacted us but their property and their right to do it.

Did your neighbor's remodel reduce your property value by 25%? Just because something is legal and you CAN do it, doesn't mean you should.

People greatly overestimate the impact a neighboring property has on their home value. 5% max. Probably less.

No way. The neighbors on either side of that house will see significantly lower value of their homes if and when they try to sell. That monstrosity is awful and truly should never have been allowed.

No, because most people don't care. Even in that case, most neighbors don't care.

Sounds like you need to live somewhere with an HOA that allows you to boss everyone else around.

No sane person would believe this nonsense, just as no sane person would want to live next to a structure as poorly conceived as this one and, by extension, no sane buyer will be interested in living nearby and certainly not next door. You rugged individualists types would be much happier in a shack in the woods far from civilization, like the Unabomber.

Location and functionality is what is most important to buyers. What your neighbor does doesn't change that.

It's the same thing with the million other things, like small cells, power lines, and eccentric paint colors, that busybodies always try to claim will hurt their property values.

Do you actually believe this? Most people do not want to drive up to their house and see that hideous monstrosity every day. They can’t enjoy their yard because that apartment addition blocks the light and the street will soon be filled with cars parked everywhere for the illegal tenants.

Sorry, but many people not only choose their house but they choose the neighborhood that matches their desire as well.

Additions like this one are the reason HOA’s were created in the first place.

I didn't say people would actively want to live next to a house like this. But unless you have an extraordinary budget, you're not going to get everything you want. The aesthetics of the neighboring house is rarely on someone's list of "must haves." Location, functionality, and cost are. It isn't going to take much for someone focused on those aspects to overlook the neighboring house. Any impact on price is going to be far closer to 5% than the absurd figure of 25% that was mentioned earlier.

I'm curious, though, why you think shade precludes someone from being able to enjoy their yard. Would you feel the same way about a tall tree blocking sunlight?

A tall tree fits in with the aesthetic of a mature neighborhood. A hideous rectangular building that looks like an apartment building does not.

That's aesthetics, not functionality. It doesn't prevent you from using and enjoying your backyard.

It does when the three level addition filled with people and windows has removed any sense of privacy the yard used to have. The tree does none of that.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t seen many neighbors come out in support of this addition. Even the big realtor in the neighborhood is helping the woman next door with information.

Most of us are in shock that the county could possibly allow this. The height and the closeness to property lines seems insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't live in the community in question, but I am watching this carefully because I also live in a community with no HOA in Fairfax County. This is scary to see in a county that I think of as both well funded and "competent". However my thinking is changing quickly on the competent part.

What exactly do you think is wrong with it? Do you really want county staff deciding what is "pretty enough" to build?

The limited set back is interesting, but it doesn't look like this addition is any closer to the neighboring house than the original structure.

Are you the owner of the house? You continually reply in such an aggressive manner trying to defend this atrocious addition that never should have been allowed to happen.

I think it's strange you find that aggressive. The critics of this addition seem far more aggressive than anything I've written.

I don't like the way the addition looks either, but I don't think subjective notions of aesthetics should override individual property rights. If you wanted to be able to micromanage what other people build, then HOAs are always an option. It's often quite difficult to find a house that isn't in one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t seen many neighbors come out in support of this addition. Even the big realtor in the neighborhood is helping the woman next door with information.

Most of us are in shock that the county could possibly allow this. The height and the closeness to property lines seems insane.

Closeness? It isn't any closer than the original structure based on the pictures. It's tall, but a 2 story house with a sloped roof is probably going to be just as tall.

[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:I don't see the issue in this. They basically took the house and added two stories onto the side part of the house. If you look at the drone images they all have that long side, including the complaining neighbor. Our neighbors did horrible remodels that impacted us but their property and their right to do it.

Did your neighbor's remodel reduce your property value by 25%? Just because something is legal and you CAN do it, doesn't mean you should.

People greatly overestimate the impact a neighboring property has on their home value. 5% max. Probably less.

No way. The neighbors on either side of that house will see significantly lower value of their homes if and when they try to sell. That monstrosity is awful and truly should never have been allowed.

No, because most people don't care. Even in that case, most neighbors don't care.

Sounds like you need to live somewhere with an HOA that allows you to boss everyone else around.

No sane person would believe this nonsense, just as no sane person would want to live next to a structure as poorly conceived as this one and, by extension, no sane buyer will be interested in living nearby and certainly not next door. You rugged individualists types would be much happier in a shack in the woods far from civilization, like the Unabomber.

Location and functionality is what is most important to buyers. What your neighbor does doesn't change that.

It's the same thing with the million other things, like small cells, power lines, and eccentric paint colors, that busybodies always try to claim will hurt their property values.

Do you actually believe this? Most people do not want to drive up to their house and see that hideous monstrosity every day. They can’t enjoy their yard because that apartment addition blocks the light and the street will soon be filled with cars parked everywhere for the illegal tenants.

Sorry, but many people not only choose their house but they choose the neighborhood that matches their desire as well.

Additions like this one are the reason HOA’s were created in the first place.

I didn't say people would actively want to live next to a house like this. But unless you have an extraordinary budget, you're not going to get everything you want. The aesthetics of the neighboring house is rarely on someone's list of "must haves." Location, functionality, and cost are. It isn't going to take much for someone focused on those aspects to overlook the neighboring house. Any impact on price is going to be far closer to 5% than the absurd figure of 25% that was mentioned earlier.

I'm curious, though, why you think shade precludes someone from being able to enjoy their yard. Would you feel the same way about a tall tree blocking sunlight?

A tall tree fits in with the aesthetic of a mature neighborhood. A hideous rectangular building that looks like an apartment building does not.

That's aesthetics, not functionality. It doesn't prevent you from using and enjoying your backyard.

It does when the three level addition filled with people and windows has removed any sense of privacy the yard used to have. The tree does none of that.

Any two story addition would have overlooked the backyard. Surely you don't think second levels should be prohibited, do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I didn't say people would actively want to live next to a house like this. But unless you have an extraordinary budget, you're not going to get everything you want. The aesthetics of the neighboring house is rarely on someone's list of "must haves." Location, functionality, and cost are. It isn't going to take much for someone focused on those aspects to overlook the neighboring house. Any impact on price is going to be far closer to 5% than the absurd figure of 25% that was mentioned earlier.

I'm curious, though, why you think shade precludes someone from being able to enjoy their yard. Would you feel the same way about a tall tree blocking sunlight?


A tall tree fits in with the aesthetic of a mature neighborhood. A hideous rectangular building that looks like an apartment building does not.

+1 A tree is something beautiful. A tree will help mitigate water runoff. A hideous rectangular building adds to runoff problems. A tree provides some privacy. An apartment building with windows means no privacy from neighbors (of whom there will be more because . . . apartment building). A tree doesn't create noise or drive more cars that are on the street. A tree provides cooling shade through evapotranspiration. A building produces heat because it absorbs and reemits solar radiation. Air conditioning units and more cars contribute to a heat island. This is why cities are generally hotter. A major reason people move to the suburbs is to enjoy a yard with more green area and cooler temperatures (because of the green area).

You know this isn't an apartment building, right?

[Anonymous]

As far as I can tell, the complaints here seem more emotional and psychological than substantive. Not everything has to be pleasant to your eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can tell, the complaints here seem more emotional and psychological than substantive. Not everything has to be pleasant to your eyes.

Agree. I don't like how the addition looks. I also don't have an inalienable right to live surrounded by structures I find aesthetically pleasing or otherwise consistent with my neighborhood's aesthetic.

[Anonymous]

The county has residential property rules - like grass has to be mowed and not taller than a certain height or no chickens on smaller lots.

Sure, these type of rules infringe on the property owners right to keep/maintain their property however they want. However for the harmony of neighborhoods and other residents the county has rules for residential property.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if this will have any impact on missing middle legislation in Arlington and Alexandria.

I’m not opposed to having a duplex next to me. Or even a row of a few townhomes as long as the lot is large enough and they have parking. Plenty of ARL and ALX streets already have a mix of these housing types and they do just fine. But duplexes and townhomes are generally tasteful, unlike this hideous DIY addition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The county has residential property rules - like grass has to be mowed and not taller than a certain height or no chickens on smaller lots.

Sure, these type of rules infringe on the property owners right to keep/maintain their property however they want. However for the harmony of neighborhoods and other residents the county has rules for residential property.

And this addition (at least as planned), did not break any of the county rules because the county appears to not care much about neighborhoods having a cohesive aesthetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county has residential property rules - like grass has to be mowed and not taller than a certain height or no chickens on smaller lots.

Sure, these type of rules infringe on the property owners right to keep/maintain their property however they want. However for the harmony of neighborhoods and other residents the county has rules for residential property.

And this addition (at least as planned), did not break any of the county rules because the county appears to not care much about neighborhoods having a cohesive aesthetic.

Nor should it. Live in an HOA if that's important to you.

[Anonymous]

Zoning is all about aesthetics. So stop pretending that how things look doesn't matter. It's simply a matter of degrees. So much of the world is just hideously ugly, and I've seen enough of it to know that rules matter, unless you want to live in a dystopian hellhole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Zoning is all about aesthetics. So stop pretending that how things look doesn't matter. It's simply a matter of degrees. So much of the world is just hideously ugly, and I've seen enough of it to know that rules matter, unless you want to live in a dystopian hellhole.

Where did you get that ridiculous idea?