Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Real Estate
Reply to "Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage. Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements. Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?[/quote] So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact? So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?[/quote] Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed. The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.[/quote] It is a 12 inch error, not a 6 inch error, based on the plans submitted to get the permits.[/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