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]Respectfully, the plans being approved is irrelevant to the current issue of the structure violating set back requirements. It is incumbent upon the owner and general contractor to ensure that the submitted plans were accurate, and that all construction conforms to the approved plans and do not violate any setbacks or other code requirements.

In this instance, it is a likely assumption that the homeowner failed to complete a proper survey before making the plans, as well as undertaking a final survey and stake-out before commencing construction to confirm that all work is being done in accordance with the plans. As the adage goes, “measure twice, cut once”.

While I sympathize that the owner is trying to do the best that they can within their budget constraints, accurate surveys are essential to the process, and while expensive, can be the difference between moving forward with the project or having to tear it down. There is a very high hurdle for variances to be approved, and in this situation, it appears that it is the fault of the owner, as they would not be facing setback issues had they invested in the proper process from the start (be it in the design or construction). Also, the orientation of the home to the property lines is irrelevant – more homes that not are not directly parallel to property lines.

This fiasco also highlights another issue of an owner acting as the GC – the owner is responsible for the costs incurred of the project should things go wrong. If the owner were using a licensed GC to manage the design and build, the owner would have legal means to pursue compensation or other remedy for the errors by going after the GC who would have bonding in place for the project to protect against any issues.

The arguments about aesthetics are a distraction, as are the comments simply pointing to the fact that plans were approved. The underlying issue is the setback, and given it is an entirely self-created issue by the owner and on that could have been easily mitigated with the proper work in the planning phases, it stands to be difficult to get. No one on here knows if it will be approved or denied, but it is a very high hurdle and I think it is inaccurate to assume it will be granted (ultimately it is up to county officials). Nevertheless, the owner’s attempts to maximize space and minimize costs have created a situation where the costs have ballooned.
[/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