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]Given that no one engaged in commenting here is a decision maker on the Fairfax County BZA in all likelihood, none of us know what the BZA will ultimately rule. That being said, we can have fun and engage in our own zero-stakes debate with our personal understanding of the rules (which ultimately is meaningless).

From Fairfax County code on Special Permits:
(https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc-viewer.aspx#secid-2583)

[i]The Zoning Administrator may approve a reduction in the minimum setback requirements when a building or freestanding accessory structure (whether existing or partially constructed) does not comply with the minimum setback requirements applicable at the time such building or accessory structure was erected. A reduction may be approved in accordance with the following provisions:

1. The Zoning Administrator determines that:
a. )The error does not exceed ten percent of the applicable measurement;[/i]
[b]The owner appears to satisfy this (6 inches / 96 inch setback = 6.25%).[/b]

[i]b. The noncompliance was done through no fault of the property owner, or was the result of an error in the location of the building or structure after the issuance of a building permit, if required;[/i]
[b]The owner is likely at fault due to their failure to have proper surveying performed and validated both before and during construction. The owners clearly did not determine the correct layout of property lines in conjunction with the planned addition and conform their design accordingly. I read that the owner claimed to have engaged a surveyor, but there are many different levels of surveys offered and I think it is fair to assume that no comprehensive site survey with pins being laid was done , nor any sort of pre-construction stake out…the owner went the cheap route. The owner has a duty to ensure all design and construction was compliant with relevant codes and any other applicable regulations. They are the permittee and general contractor in this situation, so they are wholly responsible.[/b]

[i]c. It will not impair the purpose and intent of this Ordinance;[/i]

[i]d. It will not be detrimental to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity;[/i]
[b]The next-door neighbor is now able weigh in with their opinions, which they did not have initially due to the addition being constructed by right. Given that a special permit / variance must be sought, the next-door neighbors can now go on record and offer their views to the BZA for consideration. The neighbor can weigh in on any host of subjective matters that they feel may cause them harm – it is just up to the BZA to consider and determine how much, if any weight to give them. For example, the next-door neighbor has solar panels on their home, and the addition under construction may be detrimental to their power output due to reduced insolation. [/b]

[i]e. It will not create unsafe conditions regarding other properties or public streets;[/i]
[b]This is debatable, as a primary reason for side yard setbacks is fire separation and public safety. The new addition contains a kitchen and six bedrooms. The most common place in a home for a fire to occur is the kitchen. The second most common place is a bedroom. If I was the next-door neighbor, I would be raising fire safety as a principal concern in opposition to allowing the structure to exceed the required 8 foot minimum setback. One can see on a street view how close the neighbor’s home is to the addition. This should be a reasonable objection to raise.[/b]

[i]f. Compliance with the minimum setback requirements would cause the owner unreasonable hardship; and[/i]
[b]The violation of setbacks is due to the negligence of the owner failing to perform accurate surveys and confirm that the addition conformed to minimum setbacks. There is no unreasonable hardship caused to the homeowner as this is a reasonable outcome of failing to do the proper survey work. Losing money due to a mistake of one’s own accord is not a get out of jail free card in this sort of process.[/b]
[/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