Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[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.

It seems like this addition is unpleasant in many people's eyes (based on comments here). If I were the neighbor I would appeal my tax assessment because no way would I pay 10K in taxes (or close to that) to live next to that. Their house value is most definitely impacted and it's the fault of the county. The assessed value is no longer valid on their house.

Doing a formal or rigorous study on the impact of an ugly house on the property values of neighboring homes would be difficult, due to the subjectivity. But there other things that can give us an idea. Consider dilapidated houses. Those have about a 5% impact on the value of neighboring homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It seems like this addition is unpleasant in many people's eyes (based on comments here). If I were the neighbor I would appeal my tax assessment because no way would I pay 10K in taxes (or close to that) to live next to that. Their house value is most definitely impacted and it's the fault of the county. The assessed value is no longer valid on their house.

Doing a formal or rigorous study on the impact of an ugly house on the property values of neighboring homes would be difficult, due to the subjectivity. But there other things that can give us an idea. Consider dilapidated houses. Those have about a 5% impact on the value of neighboring homes.

5-10% is more commonly cited, and that's for temporary conditions like poor maintenance of an adjacent property. A 10% reduction in property value is probably worth litigating in an effort to make the neighbor's activity too expensive and burdensome for him to continue to pursue.

[Anonymous]

The neighbors need to get together and litigate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The neighbors need to get together and litigate.

On what basis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The neighbors need to get together and litigate.

On what basis?

Their constitutional right not to live near anything they deem ugly!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The neighbors need to get together and litigate.

Litigation has been discussed amongst neighbors. Cost is definitely a factor.

I think at this moment, everyone is hoping the work stoppage leads to the structure needing to be torn down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The neighbors need to get together and litigate.

Litigation has been discussed amongst neighbors. Cost is definitely a factor.

I think at this moment, everyone is hoping the work stoppage leads to the structure needing to be torn down.

Costs like having to pay legal fees for the defendant when they ultimately prevail...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The neighbors need to get together and litigate.

Litigation has been discussed amongst neighbors. Cost is definitely a factor.

I think at this moment, everyone is hoping the work stoppage leads to the structure needing to be torn down.

Costs like having to pay legal fees for the defendant when they ultimately prevail...

That's not the way it works.

The legal theory would be one of private nuisance. The neighbors might prevail in front of a jury; it's difficult to imagine most people having any sympathy for the defendant in this case, and plenty for the plaintiffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

The neighbors need to get together and litigate.


Litigation has been discussed amongst neighbors. Cost is definitely a factor.

I think at this moment, everyone is hoping the work stoppage leads to the structure needing to be torn down.


Costs like having to pay legal fees for the defendant when they ultimately prevail...


That's not the way it works.

The legal theory would be one of private nuisance. The neighbors might prevail in front of a jury; it's difficult to imagine most people having any sympathy for the defendant in this case, and plenty for the plaintiffs.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The neighbors need to get together and litigate.

Litigation has been discussed amongst neighbors. Cost is definitely a factor.

I think at this moment, everyone is hoping the work stoppage leads to the structure needing to be torn down.

Costs like having to pay legal fees for the defendant when they ultimately prevail...

That's not the way it works.

The legal theory would be one of private nuisance. The neighbors might prevail in front of a jury; it's difficult to imagine most people having any sympathy for the defendant in this case, and plenty for the plaintiffs.

You can't bring a case based on aesthetics, nor can you assert a right to sunlight. It would never get anywhere close to a jury.

[Anonymous]

ou can't bring a case based on aesthetics, nor can you assert a right to sunlight. It would never get anywhere close to a jury.

How about drainage issues?

[Anonymous]

ou can't bring a case based on aesthetics, nor can you assert a right to sunlight. It would never get anywhere close to a jury.


How about drainage issues?

And growth of mold due to lack of sunlight. Dark and wet = mold.

[Anonymous]

Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

ou can't bring a case based on aesthetics, nor can you assert a right to sunlight. It would never get anywhere close to a jury.

How about drainage issues?

This probably the only viable legal theory based on the facts known. You'd (I think) have to show the water diversion issue was serious and prevented the neighbors' quiet enjoyment of the adjacent property. But it seems it would be an uphill battle factually considering that the county considers drainage in approving permits and granted this permit.