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]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.

[b]The side sideback isn't correctible.[/b] 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]

The problem is that it isn’t just 6 inches that’s the problem. It’s six inches all along the part of the wall that intrudes on the set back, with all of that extending 30 feet in height. That’s a lot of volume that is too close to the property line, so a very big mistake. It is very noticeable to the neighbors and anyone walking past. It is definitely not insignificant.

[/quote]

Yes, the addition being large and tall is noticcable. Yes, it is noticeably close to the property line.

The question, though, is whether moving it 6 inches back would change that in any meaningful way. I don't think it would.[/quote]

The important point is that the law requires it to be six inches further back from the property line than it is. The homeowner/contractor did not take the actions he could have taken to line up the foundation correctly, so now it is closer to the property line than the zoning regulations allow. 
The owner was careless in not having a pre construction survey done. Unfortunately, the mistake is noticeable. It’s up to the county to decide what actions will need to be taken. 
[/quote]

If I was the owner, I'd create some 3D renderings comparing the current placement to 6 inches back. The difference isn't going to be noticable. The reality is that it is just going to look like a big, ugly building either way.[/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