Reply to Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Except the homeowner is the GC. The homeowner was responsible for the plans. [/quote]
 
For these purposes, it doesn't matter. It would still be or not be a "self-inflicted hardship" for the purposes of seeking a variance (although conceivably the GC could be legally liable for the damages). The point is basically that the county picked up some responsibility by approving the plan. [/quote]

Logically, then no homeowner needs to do a survey. Draw up your plans with your best guess, submit them to county and wait for the county to do a survey. If the county doesn't catch your mistake, build as fast as you can.[/quote]

The public records for the original application indicate that the side setback is 8.5 feet for the plan submitted. The required setback is 8 feet, so if the application showed 8.5 there was no error by the county in approving the plan. If that is the case, the setback error would have taken place after the plan was approved, not before. So during the construction phase, not the approval phase. 
[/quote]

Probably because someone measured from the fence and not the property boundary. The government should have caught this error according to some posters. [/quote]

How would the government catch the error? Don’t they just examine the materials present in the application itself? Do they typically go out and examine the site itself when reviewing an application?
[/quote]

Some seem to argue that because the county approved the plan, the county now bears some responsibility for the error. It's no longer "self-inflicted" because the county said it was OK. [/quote]

Basically, yes. This issue is now coming up as an enforcement action after the homeowner relied in good faith on the approved permit. They can argue vested-rights protections against retroactive enforcement, and that they're not unilaterally responsible for the error.

It doesn't look like a slam-dunk argument, but it is a significant different scenario than the precedent that puts tight limitations on variances. Which is part of the reason why they'd almost certainly seek a special permit instead of a variance.[/quote]

It is not a good argument at all because the plan as submitted did not include the error, according to public documents. The plan noted what should have been the correct measurement, but the homeowner allowed a foundation to be poured that went past the required setback. The homeowner is responsible for the error here, not the county.

The county has the expectation that a homeowner will follow the plans that they submit to the zoning department. This homeowner did not follow the plans he submitted, so the county cannot have any responsibility for an error that the homeowner made.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics