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][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.

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]

County rezoning has mandated tear downs for much less.[/quote]

Yeah, a pp cited sheds. Except sheds can be (relatively) easily moved. Got any examples involving houses or businesses?[/quote]

There's probably a reason it doesn't happen with large builds. There is a very real possibility that the county will say tear it down, and a responsible builder will take measures to avoid a five or six figure mistake. [/quote]

So no examples?[/quote]

No. The cost of making a mistake is too high, so no one rolls the dice. [/quote]

Except it does happen. A post-construction example in Arlington:

V-11945-23-UP-1: A use permit request by Kohlmark Builders, Inc. on behalf of Stuart and Norma Jean Young, the owners, to permit a rear setback of 24.6 feet to the building wall (sunroom) instead of 25 feet to the building wall (sunroom) as required, and to permit a left side setback of 4.6 feet to the screened A/C units instead of 5 feet to the A/C units as required; re: after the fact approval of sunroom wall and A/C units to an existing one-family detached dwelling in the R-5 zoning district, on the premises known as 1007 18th Street South (Arlington Ridge).

https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/commissions/documents/bza/minutes-2024/may-15-2024-bza-minutes-final.pdf[/quote]

Amusingly, Arlington considers:

[quote]WHEREAS, the BZA has determined that the modification is compatible with development in
the surrounding neighborhood and that the structure’s overall footprint size and placement are
similar to comparable structures on other properties surrounding the lot in question and the
proposal would help preserve natural land form, historical features and/or significant trees.[/quote]

That would be a problem in this specific case. [/quote]

Again, "modification" refers to the setback reduction, not the entire project.[/quote]

The use of the word structure in the BZA's decision is a clear reference to the building addition that was created by the project. Your intentional misreading isn't cute. [/quote]

Go ahead and try that in your comments to the BZA, and definitely don't bother consulting a lawyer first.[/quote]

Why would I parrot the BZA's words back to them? Again, this is the BZA speaking as part of its ruling on a setback:

[quote]BZA has determined that the modification is compatible with development in
the surrounding neighborhood and that the structure’s overall footprint size and placement are
similar to comparable structures on other properties[/quote]

The BZA of Arlington clearly considers more than just "would this impact the neighboring property." These holistic approaches to zoning gives the County leeway to make almost any ruling. It's not my lawyer that needs to address these issues, but the builder's. I am sure he is self-represented though because that's cheaper. [/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