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]One of the provisions the Zoning Administrator must consider is if the variance will be   “detrimental to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity”

This is where the bulk of the county’s response was. Think the homeowner has a hard time proving that his addition doesn’t impact the use or enjoyment of his neighbors. Enjoyment is very subjective and I can tell you I absolutely wouldn’t enjoy my property if I lived next to that. It’s a hard argument to make that the neighbors are not negatively impacted. [/quote]

I don't agree. If the structure, which was otherwise compliant, was 7 inches narrower, the enjoyment by the neighbors would be identical. Their enjoyment issues go to the size of the structure itself, which the county approved and which was with the zoning/building code rules. [/quote]

Agree that the neighbors (and I think there is a lot more than 1 impacted), enjoyment is similar whether it is 7inches or not. BUT the neighbors enjoyment was not a consideration in the approval process when the homeowner followed building code.

He did not build to code and seeks a variance. Now, neighbors use and enjoyment is a consideration and taken into account with the variance request.

With a variance, homeowners right to build doesn’t automatically get a pass because it was fine before. With the variance, the community gets a say and there is a lot of public opposition to this project. It’s going to be an interesting case.

Hope the homeowner gets a better lawyer than he did contractor. The contractor letter submitted about hardship with the variance request was awful.

I’m also surprised that the county is dealing with Mr. Nguyen and addressing him as the homeowner. He is not the homeowner of record on the tax pages.[/quote]

But this is not logical reasoning. If the height of the structure isn't at issue, the neighbors' enjoyment (or lack thereof) of the structure should not be considered. The enjoyment analysis should only go to thing being varied. Will the 7 extra inches of width negatively impact the neighbors' enjoyment?

I'll admit, I haven't read the codes or statutes at issue. I'd be curious to read that and any caselaw interpreting it. [/quote]

There are reasons zoning ordinances are written with certain setbacks specified. One of the reasons is that the character of a neighborhood will vary depending upon how far apart the structures are built. At the time of writing the ordinance which applies here, the county deemed 8 feet as the necessary side setback for this zone. So, yes, an extra 7 inches can negatively affect neighbors. If it didn’t matter, the ordinance would have had a different setback requirement. Yes, sometimes variances are granted, but only under certain circumstances.

On the ownership issue, is it possible that the gentleman is acting as the agent for the actual owner, or possibly has a POA? [/quote]

Someone with more knowledge should chime in with a cite, but my understanding is that variances for errors within 10% are routinely granted in ordinary course (I think without the need for notice and hearing?). Sounds like the owner’s breach was within the 10% margin.[/quote]

The letter addresses the 10% margin:

“While additional encroachment to stay within the ten-percent, you state that installation of vinyl siding on the addition will result in a final setback "around" 7.3 feet, you acknowledge that both the dimension of the vinyl siding and the final setback are both approximated. In this case, [b]the measurements at hand are so close to the ten-percent limit that there is practically no room for further error or uncertainty.[/b] As a result, the Zoning Administrator is unable to applicable side yard setback.”
[/quote]

Right. So it's within the 10% that the BZA consistently approves, but they won't approve it here. [/quote]

The point is that the numbers that they’ve been given are only approximations, so it is not clear that it is within the 10%. [b]Unfortunately, there’s evidence that this homeowner has changed plans without permission before (the plans showed a front entry garage, but the actual structure did not include a garage), so maybe the board does not feel confident that they can rely on the approximate numbers included in this appeal.[/b] Any mistake in the approximated numbers has the potential to put it over the 10% margin. 
[/quote]

The board didn't mention any of that in the denial letter. [/quote]

Doesn’t mean it’s not fact. And the county knows it he’s been sloppy/untrustworthy to build according to plans. The setback issue, fine might have been a survey issue; however, not building the garage??? What was that excuse?[/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