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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”[/quote]

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice. [/quote]

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember? [/quote]

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).[/quote]

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?
[/quote]

My point is that the neighborhood has no charm or “character” to begin with, so there’s nothing really to preserve. To clear, I don’t think the argument is a valid one either way. People who don’t live in an HOA aren’t owed some coherent aesthetic. And people definitely aren’t entitled to “uncrowded” neighborhoods. [/quote]

I don’t think you understand what the zoning board means by referring to the character of a community. They’re not talking about charm. It refers to a sense of continuity and cohesiveness and whether a proposed project fits into a neighborhood in the same way other structures do. It has to do with a proposed structure not being of a totally different character than what is already there.

And, yes, the requirements for two off street parking spaces do go to how “crowded” a neighborhood can be. Suburban neighborhood streets are not super wide, and can be narrow. More cars parked on the streets can make it more difficult for two cars to pass each other safely. They can also make it less safe for children crossing streets, riding bikes, or even just playing in the street. 
[/quote]

Zoning is about land use, not about aesthetics. Even accepting what you're saying as true, Fairfax County zoning laws consider three-story rectangular additions used for residential purposes sufficiently cohesive. This property satisfies parking minimums, so no right to challenge. There aren't resident minimums for a family related by blood/marriage, so the parking minimums aren't about "crowds." [/quote]

Zoning used to be solely about land use. That's no longer the case. You are living in the past. [/quote]

Do you dispute that three-floor, rectangular box addition six inches narrower than this person's would comply with all FFX county zoning ordinances despite not having the same "character" as the rest of the neighborhood?[/quote]

Apparently, it's impossible to build that rectangular box without violating the setbacks. That's why we are here. [/quote]

Do you have a cite for that? You're saying identical structure 6 inches narrower cannot be structurally sound and comply with relevant ordinances/codes?[/quote]

There's no evidence of your proposed structure. Draw up some plans, and I will take a look.[/quote]

So you have no basis for asserting that the addition can't be built without violating the setbacks? Other than that others on this thread have apparently said that?[/quote]

Speculation by others does not constitue a set of drawings that don't violate a setback. [/quote]

And the converse is also true. There is no reason to believe the same design couldn’t be six inches narrower.[/quote]

So, show us some drawings. 
[/quote]

DP. I really don't know what point either one of you is arguing. Obviously the addition as planned couldn't fit behind the setback- there simply isn't enough room on the lot. But also obviously, it could have been 6-12 inches narrower. I don't know what the interior layout looks like. Conceivably they might have needed to rearrange things, but I doubt it would have taken much.[/quote]

The person you're responding to believes that, absent drawings from an architect and engineer, it wouldn't be possible to build this addition 6-12 inches narrower. [/quote]

I don't believe anything. It needs to be proven that this design is compatible with the space. So far, we have a set of drawings that show it can't be done. Random speculation that it could fit based on "It's just 6 inches!" is just that; speculation. [/quote]

Weird trolling.[/quote]

The pot calling the kettle black. You can speculate all you want about the structure. Until it's a design on paper that can be reviewed, it's pointless speculation. [/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