Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry rules are rules. I don't care if you've poured the concrete or framed or did all the plumbing and electricity and already put in custom Laura Ashley drapes with little teacups all over them.

In fact, I relish the fact that you have to tear it down at that point because you didn't follow the rules each step of the way. It will be a warning for others.

Those rules also include the exception processes for addressing mistakes. Those need to be followed, too.

Reasons for a dimensional variance:

Strict compliance with the standard would unreasonably prevent the landowner from using the property for a permitted use or would render conformity necessarily burdensome.

The particular request, or a lesser relaxation of ordinance standard, would provide substantial justice to the landowner and neighbors;

The plight is due to unique circumstances of property and is not shared by neighboring properties in the same zone.

The problem is not self-created.

I don't see any of these arguments passing muster.

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but:

1) The court decisions mentioned previously seem to apply only to variances and not local ordinances allowing these kinds of limited, special exceptions.

2) Other case law suggest courts do not apply limitations on BZA decisions nearly as much as the pp's brief references suggested, even when limited to variances.

3) The approved plan, despite already containing the measurement error, provides a solid, albeit not definitely, basis to argue the report was not fully self inflicted. (Which doesn't seem to be a key point anyway if this isn't a variance.)

I don't know the full details of this case, laws, or precedents, but there seems to be room for the homeowner to make a solid legal argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry rules are rules. I don't care if you've poured the concrete or framed or did all the plumbing and electricity and already put in custom Laura Ashley drapes with little teacups all over them.

In fact, I relish the fact that you have to tear it down at that point because you didn't follow the rules each step of the way. It will be a warning for others.

Those rules also include the exception processes for addressing mistakes. Those need to be followed, too.

Reasons for a dimensional variance:

Strict compliance with the standard would unreasonably prevent the landowner from using the property for a permitted use or would render conformity necessarily burdensome.

The particular request, or a lesser relaxation of ordinance standard, would provide substantial justice to the landowner and neighbors;

The plight is due to unique circumstances of property and is not shared by neighboring properties in the same zone.

The problem is not self-created.

I don't see any of these arguments passing muster.

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but:

1) The court decisions mentioned previously seem to apply only to variances and not local ordinances allowing these kinds of limited, special exceptions.

2) Other case law suggest courts do not apply limitations on BZA decisions nearly as much as the pp's brief references suggested, even when limited to variances.

3) The approved plan, despite already containing the measurement error, provides a solid, albeit not definitely, basis to argue the report was not fully self inflicted. (Which doesn't seem to be a key point anyway if this isn't a variance.)

I don't know the full details of this case, laws, or precedents, but there seems to be room for the homeowner to make a solid legal argument.

To respond to 3), the government didn't draw up the plans. Given the history, I suspect the plans included a guesstimate of the property boundaries based on the fence, or simply ignored the setbacks. Otherwise, you could argue that any of the work that was done incorrectly is acceptable because "the county approved it."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry rules are rules. I don't care if you've poured the concrete or framed or did all the plumbing and electricity and already put in custom Laura Ashley drapes with little teacups all over them.

In fact, I relish the fact that you have to tear it down at that point because you didn't follow the rules each step of the way. It will be a warning for others.

Those rules also include the exception processes for addressing mistakes. Those need to be followed, too.

Reasons for a dimensional variance:

Strict compliance with the standard would unreasonably prevent the landowner from using the property for a permitted use or would render conformity necessarily burdensome.

The particular request, or a lesser relaxation of ordinance standard, would provide substantial justice to the landowner and neighbors;

The plight is due to unique circumstances of property and is not shared by neighboring properties in the same zone.

The problem is not self-created.

I don't see any of these arguments passing muster.

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but:

1) The court decisions mentioned previously seem to apply only to variances and not local ordinances allowing these kinds of limited, special exceptions.

2) Other case law suggest courts do not apply limitations on BZA decisions nearly as much as the pp's brief references suggested, even when limited to variances.

3) The approved plan, despite already containing the measurement error, provides a solid, albeit not definitely, basis to argue the report was not fully self inflicted. (Which doesn't seem to be a key point anyway if this isn't a variance.)

I don't know the full details of this case, laws, or precedents, but there seems to be room for the homeowner to make a solid legal argument.

To respond to 3), the government didn't draw up the plans. Given the history, I suspect the plans included a guesstimate of the property boundaries based on the fence, or simply ignored the setbacks. Otherwise, you could argue that any of the work that was done incorrectly is acceptable because "the county approved it."

Yes, I acknowledged that the measurement error was made in the submitted plans prior to approval. That doesn't change this. Although I imagine they'd want to be convinced it was actually a mistake. And this wouldn't be for determining acceptability- it would be for determining whether you could seek a variance.

Regardless, it doesn't seem to strictly apply in this case because the homeowner probably won't need to use the variance process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry rules are rules. I don't care if you've poured the concrete or framed or did all the plumbing and electricity and already put in custom Laura Ashley drapes with little teacups all over them.

In fact, I relish the fact that you have to tear it down at that point because you didn't follow the rules each step of the way. It will be a warning for others.

Those rules also include the exception processes for addressing mistakes. Those need to be followed, too.

Reasons for a dimensional variance:

Strict compliance with the standard would unreasonably prevent the landowner from using the property for a permitted use or would render conformity necessarily burdensome.

The particular request, or a lesser relaxation of ordinance standard, would provide substantial justice to the landowner and neighbors;

The plight is due to unique circumstances of property and is not shared by neighboring properties in the same zone.

The problem is not self-created.

I don't see any of these arguments passing muster.

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but:

1) The court decisions mentioned previously seem to apply only to variances and not local ordinances allowing these kinds of limited, special exceptions.

2) Other case law suggest courts do not apply limitations on BZA decisions nearly as much as the pp's brief references suggested, even when limited to variances.

3) The approved plan, despite already containing the measurement error, provides a solid, albeit not definitely, basis to argue the report was not fully self inflicted. (Which doesn't seem to be a key point anyway if this isn't a variance.)

I don't know the full details of this case, laws, or precedents, but there seems to be room for the homeowner to make a solid legal argument.

To respond to 3), the government didn't draw up the plans. Given the history, I suspect the plans included a guesstimate of the property boundaries based on the fence, or simply ignored the setbacks. Otherwise, you could argue that any of the work that was done incorrectly is acceptable because "the county approved it."

Yes, I acknowledged that the measurement error was made in the submitted plans prior to approval. That doesn't change this. Although I imagine they'd want to be convinced it was actually a mistake. And this wouldn't be for determining acceptability- it would be for determining whether you could seek a variance.

Regardless, it doesn't seem to strictly apply in this case because the homeowner probably won't need to use the variance process.

Do the plans actually show measurements indicating that the addition would cross over the setback line?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry rules are rules. I don't care if you've poured the concrete or framed or did all the plumbing and electricity and already put in custom Laura Ashley drapes with little teacups all over them.

In fact, I relish the fact that you have to tear it down at that point because you didn't follow the rules each step of the way. It will be a warning for others.

Those rules also include the exception processes for addressing mistakes. Those need to be followed, too.

Reasons for a dimensional variance:

Strict compliance with the standard would unreasonably prevent the landowner from using the property for a permitted use or would render conformity necessarily burdensome.

The particular request, or a lesser relaxation of ordinance standard, would provide substantial justice to the landowner and neighbors;

The plight is due to unique circumstances of property and is not shared by neighboring properties in the same zone.

The problem is not self-created.

I don't see any of these arguments passing muster.

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but:

1) The court decisions mentioned previously seem to apply only to variances and not local ordinances allowing these kinds of limited, special exceptions.

2) Other case law suggest courts do not apply limitations on BZA decisions nearly as much as the pp's brief references suggested, even when limited to variances.

3) The approved plan, despite already containing the measurement error, provides a solid, albeit not definitely, basis to argue the report was not fully self inflicted. (Which doesn't seem to be a key point anyway if this isn't a variance.)

I don't know the full details of this case, laws, or precedents, but there seems to be room for the homeowner to make a solid legal argument.

To respond to 3), the government didn't draw up the plans. Given the history, I suspect the plans included a guesstimate of the property boundaries based on the fence, or simply ignored the setbacks. Otherwise, you could argue that any of the work that was done incorrectly is acceptable because "the county approved it."

Yes, I acknowledged that the measurement error was made in the submitted plans prior to approval. That doesn't change this. Although I imagine they'd want to be convinced it was actually a mistake. And this wouldn't be for determining acceptability- it would be for determining whether you could seek a variance.

Regardless, it doesn't seem to strictly apply in this case because the homeowner probably won't need to use the variance process.

Do the plans actually show measurements indicating that the addition would cross over the setback line?

I wouldn't think so. But if the plans were made in error, but in good faith, and they proceeded to construction based on the approval of those plans, then the precedent the "self-inflicted" precedent referenced earlier likely doesn't apply.

More significantly, though, it wouldn't matter provided they don't need to go through the variance process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry rules are rules. I don't care if you've poured the concrete or framed or did all the plumbing and electricity and already put in custom Laura Ashley drapes with little teacups all over them.

In fact, I relish the fact that you have to tear it down at that point because you didn't follow the rules each step of the way. It will be a warning for others.

Those rules also include the exception processes for addressing mistakes. Those need to be followed, too.

Reasons for a dimensional variance:

Strict compliance with the standard would unreasonably prevent the landowner from using the property for a permitted use or would render conformity necessarily burdensome.

The particular request, or a lesser relaxation of ordinance standard, would provide substantial justice to the landowner and neighbors;

The plight is due to unique circumstances of property and is not shared by neighboring properties in the same zone.

The problem is not self-created.

I don't see any of these arguments passing muster.

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but:

1) The court decisions mentioned previously seem to apply only to variances and not local ordinances allowing these kinds of limited, special exceptions.

2) Other case law suggest courts do not apply limitations on BZA decisions nearly as much as the pp's brief references suggested, even when limited to variances.

3) The approved plan, despite already containing the measurement error, provides a solid, albeit not definitely, basis to argue the report was not fully self inflicted. (Which doesn't seem to be a key point anyway if this isn't a variance.)

I don't know the full details of this case, laws, or precedents, but there seems to be room for the homeowner to make a solid legal argument.

To respond to 3), the government didn't draw up the plans. Given the history, I suspect the plans included a guesstimate of the property boundaries based on the fence, or simply ignored the setbacks. Otherwise, you could argue that any of the work that was done incorrectly is acceptable because "the county approved it."

Yes, I acknowledged that the measurement error was made in the submitted plans prior to approval. That doesn't change this. Although I imagine they'd want to be convinced it was actually a mistake. And this wouldn't be for determining acceptability- it would be for determining whether you could seek a variance.

Regardless, it doesn't seem to strictly apply in this case because the homeowner probably won't need to use the variance process.

Do the plans actually show measurements indicating that the addition would cross over the setback line?

I wouldn't think so. But if the plans were made in error, but in good faith, and they proceeded to construction based on the approval of those plans, then the precedent the "self-inflicted" precedent referenced earlier likely doesn't apply.

More significantly, though, it wouldn't matter provided they don't need to go through the variance process.

If the plans made it look like they were staying on the correct side of the setback line then what the county approved was plans that showed the correct setback. If this is the case, it was the error of the GC who allowed a foundation to be poured and framing to go up that went over the setback by almost half a foot. Clearly they didn’t follow the approved plans if those approved plans showed the addition as allowing the full required setback.

What are the reasons you are thinking they don’t need to go through the variance process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry rules are rules. I don't care if you've poured the concrete or framed or did all the plumbing and electricity and already put in custom Laura Ashley drapes with little teacups all over them.

In fact, I relish the fact that you have to tear it down at that point because you didn't follow the rules each step of the way. It will be a warning for others.

Those rules also include the exception processes for addressing mistakes. Those need to be followed, too.

Reasons for a dimensional variance:

Strict compliance with the standard would unreasonably prevent the landowner from using the property for a permitted use or would render conformity necessarily burdensome.

The particular request, or a lesser relaxation of ordinance standard, would provide substantial justice to the landowner and neighbors;

The plight is due to unique circumstances of property and is not shared by neighboring properties in the same zone.

The problem is not self-created.

I don't see any of these arguments passing muster.

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but:

1) The court decisions mentioned previously seem to apply only to variances and not local ordinances allowing these kinds of limited, special exceptions.

2) Other case law suggest courts do not apply limitations on BZA decisions nearly as much as the pp's brief references suggested, even when limited to variances.

3) The approved plan, despite already containing the measurement error, provides a solid, albeit not definitely, basis to argue the report was not fully self inflicted. (Which doesn't seem to be a key point anyway if this isn't a variance.)

I don't know the full details of this case, laws, or precedents, but there seems to be room for the homeowner to make a solid legal argument.

To respond to 3), the government didn't draw up the plans. Given the history, I suspect the plans included a guesstimate of the property boundaries based on the fence, or simply ignored the setbacks. Otherwise, you could argue that any of the work that was done incorrectly is acceptable because "the county approved it."

Yes, I acknowledged that the measurement error was made in the submitted plans prior to approval. That doesn't change this. Although I imagine they'd want to be convinced it was actually a mistake. And this wouldn't be for determining acceptability- it would be for determining whether you could seek a variance.

Regardless, it doesn't seem to strictly apply in this case because the homeowner probably won't need to use the variance process.

Do the plans actually show measurements indicating that the addition would cross over the setback line?

I wouldn't think so. But if the plans were made in error, but in good faith, and they proceeded to construction based on the approval of those plans, then the precedent the "self-inflicted" precedent referenced earlier likely doesn't apply.

More significantly, though, it wouldn't matter provided they don't need to go through the variance process.

If the plans made it look like they were staying on the correct side of the setback line then what the county approved was plans that showed the correct setback. If this is the case, it was the error of the GC who allowed a foundation to be poured and framing to go up that went over the setback by almost half a foot. Clearly they didn’t follow the approved plans if those approved plans showed the addition as allowing the full required setback.

What are the reasons you are thinking they don’t need to go through the variance process?

There's a different process to seek a special permit to get an exception to the normal setback requirements (and a handful of other things).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry rules are rules. I don't care if you've poured the concrete or framed or did all the plumbing and electricity and already put in custom Laura Ashley drapes with little teacups all over them.

In fact, I relish the fact that you have to tear it down at that point because you didn't follow the rules each step of the way. It will be a warning for others.

Those rules also include the exception processes for addressing mistakes. Those need to be followed, too.

Reasons for a dimensional variance:

Strict compliance with the standard would unreasonably prevent the landowner from using the property for a permitted use or would render conformity necessarily burdensome.

The particular request, or a lesser relaxation of ordinance standard, would provide substantial justice to the landowner and neighbors;

The plight is due to unique circumstances of property and is not shared by neighboring properties in the same zone.

The problem is not self-created.

I don't see any of these arguments passing muster.

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but:

1) The court decisions mentioned previously seem to apply only to variances and not local ordinances allowing these kinds of limited, special exceptions.

2) Other case law suggest courts do not apply limitations on BZA decisions nearly as much as the pp's brief references suggested, even when limited to variances.

3) The approved plan, despite already containing the measurement error, provides a solid, albeit not definitely, basis to argue the report was not fully self inflicted. (Which doesn't seem to be a key point anyway if this isn't a variance.)

I don't know the full details of this case, laws, or precedents, but there seems to be room for the homeowner to make a solid legal argument.

To respond to 3), the government didn't draw up the plans. Given the history, I suspect the plans included a guesstimate of the property boundaries based on the fence, or simply ignored the setbacks. Otherwise, you could argue that any of the work that was done incorrectly is acceptable because "the county approved it."

Yes, I acknowledged that the measurement error was made in the submitted plans prior to approval. That doesn't change this. Although I imagine they'd want to be convinced it was actually a mistake. And this wouldn't be for determining acceptability- it would be for determining whether you could seek a variance.

Regardless, it doesn't seem to strictly apply in this case because the homeowner probably won't need to use the variance process.

Do the plans actually show measurements indicating that the addition would cross over the setback line?

I wouldn't think so. But if the plans were made in error, but in good faith, and they proceeded to construction based on the approval of those plans, then the precedent the "self-inflicted" precedent referenced earlier likely doesn't apply.

More significantly, though, it wouldn't matter provided they don't need to go through the variance process.

If the plans made it look like they were staying on the correct side of the setback line then what the county approved was plans that showed the correct setback. If this is the case, it was the error of the GC who allowed a foundation to be poured and framing to go up that went over the setback by almost half a foot. Clearly they didn’t follow the approved plans if those approved plans showed the addition as allowing the full required setback.

What are the reasons you are thinking they don’t need to go through the variance process?

There's a different process to seek a special permit to get an exception to the normal setback requirements (and a handful of other things).

What are the reasons you think that is the appropriate process here as opposed to a variance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry rules are rules. I don't care if you've poured the concrete or framed or did all the plumbing and electricity and already put in custom Laura Ashley drapes with little teacups all over them.

In fact, I relish the fact that you have to tear it down at that point because you didn't follow the rules each step of the way. It will be a warning for others.

Those rules also include the exception processes for addressing mistakes. Those need to be followed, too.

Reasons for a dimensional variance:

Strict compliance with the standard would unreasonably prevent the landowner from using the property for a permitted use or would render conformity necessarily burdensome.

The particular request, or a lesser relaxation of ordinance standard, would provide substantial justice to the landowner and neighbors;

The plight is due to unique circumstances of property and is not shared by neighboring properties in the same zone.

The problem is not self-created.

I don't see any of these arguments passing muster.

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but:

1) The court decisions mentioned previously seem to apply only to variances and not local ordinances allowing these kinds of limited, special exceptions.

2) Other case law suggest courts do not apply limitations on BZA decisions nearly as much as the pp's brief references suggested, even when limited to variances.

3) The approved plan, despite already containing the measurement error, provides a solid, albeit not definitely, basis to argue the report was not fully self inflicted. (Which doesn't seem to be a key point anyway if this isn't a variance.)

I don't know the full details of this case, laws, or precedents, but there seems to be room for the homeowner to make a solid legal argument.

To respond to 3), the government didn't draw up the plans. Given the history, I suspect the plans included a guesstimate of the property boundaries based on the fence, or simply ignored the setbacks. Otherwise, you could argue that any of the work that was done incorrectly is acceptable because "the county approved it."

Yes, I acknowledged that the measurement error was made in the submitted plans prior to approval. That doesn't change this. Although I imagine they'd want to be convinced it was actually a mistake. And this wouldn't be for determining acceptability- it would be for determining whether you could seek a variance.

Regardless, it doesn't seem to strictly apply in this case because the homeowner probably won't need to use the variance process.

Do the plans actually show measurements indicating that the addition would cross over the setback line?

I wouldn't think so. But if the plans were made in error, but in good faith, and they proceeded to construction based on the approval of those plans, then the precedent the "self-inflicted" precedent referenced earlier likely doesn't apply.

More significantly, though, it wouldn't matter provided they don't need to go through the variance process.

Not sure how you can say the error in the plans were made in “good faith”. Sounded like they didn’t survey before drawing up the plans. Having an initial survey done and then drawing up the plans would have been made it in good faith.

[Anonymous]

The plans must have showed the new construction within the setback bounds. That’s why the county approved them without a variance or special permit. Neighbors are notified during those processes so that they can express their opinions. In the interview the neighbors said they received no notice. Therefore, I believe the plans conformed with the county’s building regulations and setback requirements.

[Anonymous]

It does not matter much if it is a Special Permit or a Variance. Both processes allow for public input. The BZA is not mandated to grant one, even if there is a similar precedent example. But more importantly, if either is granted by the BZA, the nextdoor neighbor or any other person with standing can file an appeal to the Circuit Court.

Once this happens, the court takes an entirely different approach than the BZA to evaluating the permit, as has been discussed at length in prior comments. The courts have an extremely strict view of when a Special Permit or Variance should be granted. If some approval is granted, this approval is highly unlikely to hold up if appealed to the courts. The courts can, have, and will overrule Special Permits and Variances issued by BZAs. Obviously this only matters if someone chooses to exercise their right to challenge within 30 days of an approval of a Special Permit or Variance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The plans must have showed the new construction within the setback bounds. That’s why the county approved them without a variance or special permit. Neighbors are notified during those processes so that they can express their opinions. In the interview the neighbors said they received no notice. Therefore, I believe the plans conformed with the county’s building regulations and setback requirements.

I don't think anyone has claimed that they didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The plans must have showed the new construction within the setback bounds. That’s why the county approved them without a variance or special permit. Neighbors are notified during those processes so that they can express their opinions. In the interview the neighbors said they received no notice. Therefore, I believe the plans conformed with the county’s building regulations and setback requirements.

I don't think anyone has claimed that they didn't.

Someone up above claimed the approved plans contained the error and the homeowner proceeded with the plans as approved, so it is not the homeowner’s fault.

3) The approved plan, despite already containing the measurement error, provides a solid, albeit not definitely, basis to argue the report was not fully self inflicted. (Which doesn't seem to be a key point anyway if this isn't a variance.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It does not matter much if it is a Special Permit or a Variance. Both processes allow for public input. The BZA is not mandated to grant one, even if there is a similar precedent example. But more importantly, if either is granted by the BZA, the nextdoor neighbor or any other person with standing can file an appeal to the Circuit Court.

Once this happens, the court takes an entirely different approach than the BZA to evaluating the permit, as has been discussed at length in prior comments. The courts have an extremely strict view of when a Special Permit or Variance should be granted. If some approval is granted, this approval is highly unlikely to hold up if appealed to the courts. The courts can, have, and will overrule Special Permits and Variances issued by BZAs. Obviously this only matters if someone chooses to exercise their right to challenge within 30 days of an approval of a Special Permit or Variance.

The legal precedents you're referring to are for variances, not special permits. The strict limitations are only for variances. And even then, the precedents are taken as strictly as you've implied.

The BZA isn't obligated to grant them, but they need to apply the law fairly. The issue being addressed would be the 6 inches, not the height. If they've always granted permits in such cases (and I don't know if they have), it would be hard for them to find a justification not to in this case. Even if you think the height has a significant impact on the neighbor, the difference between those 6 inches is minor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The plans must have showed the new construction within the setback bounds. That’s why the county approved them without a variance or special permit. Neighbors are notified during those processes so that they can express their opinions. In the interview the neighbors said they received no notice. Therefore, I believe the plans conformed with the county’s building regulations and setback requirements.

I don't think anyone has claimed that they didn't.

Someone up above claimed the approved plans contained the error and the homeowner proceeded with the plans as approved, so it is not the homeowner’s fault.

3) The approved plan, despite already containing the measurement error, provides a solid, albeit not definitely, basis to argue the report was not fully self inflicted. (Which doesn't seem to be a key point anyway if this isn't a variance.)

That was me. Read what you just repeated. I said the submitted plan included the error.

I wasn't addressing who's legally at fault. I was addressing whether the "self-inflicted" precedent applies here. And there's a very plausible argument it doesn't. That's not the same thing as saying the county is legally at fault.