Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

The property line may not be a straight line, so while the structure might be built on a straight line, that doesn't mean that it mets the entire set back if the property line isn't straight.

Right, but the point is that the rear of the structure only seems to extend 5 feet further back than the original structure. If the new structure is crosses the 8ft line, then the original one did, too. There's no significant difference here.

You really can’t ascertain anything about property lines by looking at an aerial photo available online. You need to be looking at a professional survey that was produced for the purpose of building a structure. This type of survey was apparently not done for this project, so it is possible that the foundation of the new extension was following the lines correctly.

My understanding is that the county is investigating the situation. It’s more complicated than just looking at a picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

The property line may not be a straight line, so while the structure might be built on a straight line, that doesn't mean that it mets the entire set back if the property line isn't straight.

Right, but the point is that the rear of the structure only seems to extend 5 feet further back than the original structure. If the new structure is crosses the 8ft line, then the original one did, too. There's no significant difference here.

There certainly can be a difference. If the actual property line is different from the line the contractor was following, then the new foundation could be crossing over the setback line. Hard to tell without looking at a survey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crappy builder found this thread.

Doesn’t the permit say that the homeowner and the contractor are the same person?

No. Homeowner is one guy (and sometimes his wife). Other family member is crappy builder and contractor and apparently, a DCUM enthusiast.

But doesn’t the permit say that the homeowner is the contractor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crappy builder found this thread.

Doesn’t the permit say that the homeowner and the contractor are the same person?

No. Homeowner is one guy (and sometimes his wife). Other family member is crappy builder and contractor and apparently, a DCUM enthusiast.

But doesn’t the permit say that the homeowner is the contractor?

Homeowner’s name from the public tax records is listed on the building permit. Also th question on the permit about the homeowner being thr GC is marked as yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

I thought the line in question was not the back of the house - but the side of the house. And it’s a huge difference between having a small one story structure 6 inches to close, and a massive 3 story 60 foot long structure 6 inches too close.
Also, two wrongs don’t make a right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

I thought the line in question was not the back of the house - but the side of the house. And it’s a huge difference between having a small one story structure 6 inches to close, and a massive 3 story 60 foot long structure 6 inches too close.
Also, two wrongs don’t make a right.

What's the second "wrong"? The addition isn't over the maximum height.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

The property line may not be a straight line, so while the structure might be built on a straight line, that doesn't mean that it mets the entire set back if the property line isn't straight.

Right, but the point is that the rear of the structure only seems to extend 5 feet further back than the original structure. If the new structure is crosses the 8ft line, then the original one did, too. There's no significant difference here.

You really can’t ascertain anything about property lines by looking at an aerial photo available online. You need to be looking at a professional survey that was produced for the purpose of building a structure. This type of survey was apparently not done for this project, so it is possible that the foundation of the new extension was following the lines correctly.

My understanding is that the county is investigating the situation. It’s more complicated than just looking at a picture.

I was talking about the original structure, not the property line. The back corner of the addition is very close to the back corner of the original structure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

The property line may not be a straight line, so while the structure might be built on a straight line, that doesn't mean that it mets the entire set back if the property line isn't straight.

Right, but the point is that the rear of the structure only seems to extend 5 feet further back than the original structure. If the new structure is crosses the 8ft line, then the original one did, too. There's no significant difference here.

There certainly can be a difference. If the actual property line is different from the line the contractor was following, then the new foundation could be crossing over the setback line. Hard to tell without looking at a survey.

The owner/son/GC admitted in an interview I saw that the “contractor” used the fence to measure for the set back assuming it was the property line but in fact it wasn’t identical to the property. Hence why the addition is in violation of the set back requirement and is too close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

The property line may not be a straight line, so while the structure might be built on a straight line, that doesn't mean that it mets the entire set back if the property line isn't straight.

Right, but the point is that the rear of the structure only seems to extend 5 feet further back than the original structure. If the new structure is crosses the 8ft line, then the original one did, too. There's no significant difference here.

There certainly can be a difference. If the actual property line is different from the line the contractor was following, then the new foundation could be crossing over the setback line. Hard to tell without looking at a survey.

The owner/son/GC admitted in an interview I saw that the “contractor” used the fence to measure for the set back assuming it was the property line but in fact it wasn’t identical to the property. Hence why the addition is in violation of the set back requirement and is too close.

If the fence has been used as the de facto property line for many years, it seems pretty hard to credibly claim the neighbors are harmed by the encroachment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

The property line may not be a straight line, so while the structure might be built on a straight line, that doesn't mean that it mets the entire set back if the property line isn't straight.

Right, but the point is that the rear of the structure only seems to extend 5 feet further back than the original structure. If the new structure is crosses the 8ft line, then the original one did, too. There's no significant difference here.

There certainly can be a difference. If the actual property line is different from the line the contractor was following, then the new foundation could be crossing over the setback line. Hard to tell without looking at a survey.

The owner/son/GC admitted in an interview I saw that the “contractor” used the fence to measure for the set back assuming it was the property line but in fact it wasn’t identical to the property. Hence why the addition is in violation of the set back requirement and is too close.

If the fence has been used as the de facto property line for many years, it seems pretty hard to credibly claim the neighbors are harmed by the encroachment.

Um, no, that’s not the way it works. If you are the owner/contractor, you really need to get good advice from someone who knows what they’re talking about. The fence does not determine the property line. The property lines exist whether or not there is a fence on a property. Only a professional survey can show where the real property lines are.

Just out of curiosity, who put the fence up? Was there a survey with stakes marking the property corners? How do we know the fence is actually on the property boundaries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

The property line may not be a straight line, so while the structure might be built on a straight line, that doesn't mean that it mets the entire set back if the property line isn't straight.

Right, but the point is that the rear of the structure only seems to extend 5 feet further back than the original structure. If the new structure is crosses the 8ft line, then the original one did, too. There's no significant difference here.

There certainly can be a difference. If the actual property line is different from the line the contractor was following, then the new foundation could be crossing over the setback line. Hard to tell without looking at a survey.

The owner/son/GC admitted in an interview I saw that the “contractor” used the fence to measure for the set back assuming it was the property line but in fact it wasn’t identical to the property. Hence why the addition is in violation of the set back requirement and is too close.

If the fence has been used as the de facto property line for many years, it seems pretty hard to credibly claim the neighbors are harmed by the encroachment.

Um, no, that’s not the way it works. If you are the owner/contractor, you really need to get good advice from someone who knows what they’re talking about. The fence does not determine the property line. The property lines exist whether or not there is a fence on a property. Only a professional survey can show where the real property lines are.

Just out of curiosity, who put the fence up? Was there a survey with stakes marking the property corners? How do we know the fence is actually on the property boundaries?

It looks like the fence was put up by the neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

The property line may not be a straight line, so while the structure might be built on a straight line, that doesn't mean that it mets the entire set back if the property line isn't straight.

Right, but the point is that the rear of the structure only seems to extend 5 feet further back than the original structure. If the new structure is crosses the 8ft line, then the original one did, too. There's no significant difference here.

There certainly can be a difference. If the actual property line is different from the line the contractor was following, then the new foundation could be crossing over the setback line. Hard to tell without looking at a survey.

The owner/son/GC admitted in an interview I saw that the “contractor” used the fence to measure for the set back assuming it was the property line but in fact it wasn’t identical to the property. Hence why the addition is in violation of the set back requirement and is too close.

If the fence has been used as the de facto property line for many years, it seems pretty hard to credibly claim the neighbors are harmed by the encroachment.

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

The property line may not be a straight line, so while the structure might be built on a straight line, that doesn't mean that it mets the entire set back if the property line isn't straight.

Right, but the point is that the rear of the structure only seems to extend 5 feet further back than the original structure. If the new structure is crosses the 8ft line, then the original one did, too. There's no significant difference here.

There certainly can be a difference. If the actual property line is different from the line the contractor was following, then the new foundation could be crossing over the setback line. Hard to tell without looking at a survey.

The owner/son/GC admitted in an interview I saw that the “contractor” used the fence to measure for the set back assuming it was the property line but in fact it wasn’t identical to the property. Hence why the addition is in violation of the set back requirement and is too close.

If the fence has been used as the de facto property line for many years, it seems pretty hard to credibly claim the neighbors are harmed by the encroachment.

Um, no, that’s not the way it works. If you are the owner/contractor, you really need to get good advice from someone who knows what they’re talking about. The fence does not determine the property line. The property lines exist whether or not there is a fence on a property. Only a professional survey can show where the real property lines are.

Just out of curiosity, who put the fence up? Was there a survey with stakes marking the property corners? How do we know the fence is actually on the property boundaries?

It looks like the fence was put up by the neighbors.

It doesn’t matter. A professional survey will show the property lines. Posters need to go to law school apparently to understand real property, zoning and land use law. OMG

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the aerial photos, the addition doesn't extend much beyond the original back of the home. To the extent there is a setback violation, it certainly wouldn't be new. How were the neighbors able to live in their home without that full 8 feet?

The property line may not be a straight line, so while the structure might be built on a straight line, that doesn't mean that it mets the entire set back if the property line isn't straight.

Right, but the point is that the rear of the structure only seems to extend 5 feet further back than the original structure. If the new structure is crosses the 8ft line, then the original one did, too. There's no significant difference here.

There certainly can be a difference. If the actual property line is different from the line the contractor was following, then the new foundation could be crossing over the setback line. Hard to tell without looking at a survey.

The owner/son/GC admitted in an interview I saw that the “contractor” used the fence to measure for the set back assuming it was the property line but in fact it wasn’t identical to the property. Hence why the addition is in violation of the set back requirement and is too close.

If the fence has been used as the de facto property line for many years, it seems pretty hard to credibly claim the neighbors are harmed by the encroachment.

Um, no, that’s not the way it works. If you are the owner/contractor, you really need to get good advice from someone who knows what they’re talking about. The fence does not determine the property line. The property lines exist whether or not there is a fence on a property. Only a professional survey can show where the real property lines are.

Just out of curiosity, who put the fence up? Was there a survey with stakes marking the property corners? How do we know the fence is actually on the property boundaries?

It looks like the fence was put up by the neighbors.

It doesn’t matter. A professional survey will show the property lines. Posters need to go to law school apparently to understand real property, zoning and land use law. OMG

It doesn't change the property line, but it does hurt the credibility of a claim that the neighbors will be affected by the 6 inches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crappy builder found this thread.

Doesn’t the permit say that the homeowner and the contractor are the same person?

No. Homeowner is one guy (and sometimes his wife). Other family member is crappy builder and contractor and apparently, a DCUM enthusiast.

But doesn’t the permit say that the homeowner is the contractor?

Homeowner’s name from the public tax records is listed on the building permit. Also th question on the permit about the homeowner being thr GC is marked as yes.

This is from page 16 of the thread. Lots of discussion about this if you have read the whole thread:

"Right - “Mike” in the instagram interview is NOT the owner of the property. The owners have flipped back and forth a coupon of times between PHAM NGOC HOA THI and NGUYEN JENNY NGA according to tax records.

PHAM NGOC HOA THI is the current owner and about 72 years old from what I could find online."