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 wrote:

If you’re not the owner, why are you pinging on the owner of the house next door? What made you think the post you were responding to was made by her?

I wrote the post you responded to and I am not the next door homeowner, just a Fairfax county resident who is interested in how this project is being handled by the county. I’ve talked to a number of people who don’t live in the immediate neighborhood where this situation is happening, but are wondering what the resolution will be and what effect it might have on the neighborhood and the property values there. No one is having a stroke, but there is a lot interest in the outcome here.

The neighbor made this a thing by going online and trying to rile people up. That's my issue. She wasn't complaining about a lack of wind bracing, or even encroachment over the setback. Originally, she had no reason to think this violated any rules. She was instead complaining because she doesn't like how it looks. And that's fine- you certainly don't have to like everything you see or everything your neighbor does. And people will naturally complain.

But there's a big difference between complaining to your friends versus 1) posting online to rally people against a community member and 2) going to the media.

This really doesn't look like a case where she's trying to kill her neighbor's project because something was done improperly. Instead it looks like she's been hoping to find a technicality to kill a project is otherwise substantively allowed. I think that's a crappy thing to do. If she wanted that sort of control over her neighbors, she should have bought a house somewhere with an HOA.

I have no doubt that several posts in this thread are from Courtney and people closely associated with her.[/quote]

I have been following this thread. I do not know Courtney or anyone in her neighborhood. In fact I live miles away, but am in Fairfax County. I think Courtney has a right to free speech and a right to use the internet and media just like anyone else. I don't think she has control over her neighbor at all. Fairfax County will be the final arbiter in all of this (and it has turned out that there is a setback issue which she may or may not have known or suspected).

I think that almost anyone who has seen a picture of this addition would be concerned and have sympathy for Courtney. Whether you think it's crappy that she has the right to complain is your problem. She has that right. She was not wrong to ask the county to review the construction because, quite frankly, the county's reputation in regard to zoning is on the line here. [/quote]

Your post just emphasizes the problem. The decisions should be made based on what the laws actually say, not what you wish they said. It's pretty clear that this has always been about about the design, not perceptions of construction quality or the setback. But as much as you might not like the design according to your personal aesthetic, it follows the laws of the county. Given the complexity of laws and regulations in modern society, do you really think it's a good idea for the government to use unrelated technicalities to punish legal activities in response to public political pressure? I would hope you'd see the tremendous danger in that.[/quote]

It's clear in the county report that the construction is of poor quality, failing to follow approved construction methods. But hey, it's standing, let's give the builder a pass because it's just a technicality. [/quote]

When you issue a stop work order in the middle of framing, you're going to find "violations."

Come on, we all know that's not the issue here.[/quote]

Foundation anchors missing in various locations throughout.
Nail pattern incorrect at majority of braced wall panels throughout.

These are not technicalities. It's 30' tall. The braced wall panels are not optional.[/quote]

And those could be addressed if not for the stop work order. It's obvious they weren't done with the sheeting when the stop work order was issued.[/quote]

The stop work order does not mean the owner cannot address the deficiencies.
In fact that is exactly the whole point of a stop work order.

The process is as follows:
1. SWO is posted and violations are listed
2. Owner/contractor contacts Land Development Services (LDS) or the assigned inspector
3. A correction plan is reviewed
4. Inspector authorizes specific corrective work
5. Inspection occurs
6. SWO is lifted once compliance is achieved[/quote]

It sounds like they can't perform the work until the inspector authorizes it. No?[/quote]

They need to fix the issues. That is the point. Work needs to be done on remediating the issues and then they can continue with the remainder of the project. [/quote]

The county website suggests they can't do anything except for temporary weatherproofing without explicit county approval, and likely lifting the stop work order. Am I misinterpreting that?[/quote]

I am not a building official, but I don't think they can as the Stop order also references the setback issue that needs to be resolved. If they are able to get a special permit from the BZA, this still does not leave them fully in the clear as someone may (Nextdoor neighbor for instance) file an appeal to the Circuit Court within 30 days of the Special Permit approval. Assuming the plaintiff has valid standing, which it is reasonable to assume that the nextdoor neighbor here does (it is not a high bar for them to show they are an aggrieved party), the courts now have control over the process, and they follow an entirely different standard than the BZA does. Precedent court cases and judgement standards have been referenced further back in this thread.

The courts take a much stricter view towards approvals of special permits and variances, and has many times invalidated variance orders from county and city BZAs. In fact, the standard for the courts is to invalidate them save for very specific circumstances, of which most likely do not apply here (nothing inherently deficient with the property itself; issues are direct caused by the fault of the owner, etc.).

The nextdoor neighbor is in the drivers seat here and has the power to stop this situation whether any of us like it or not. It does not matter that they are opposed to the design, which does fall in the scope of what is allowed at this moment in Fairfax Count. One being opposed to the design does not invalidate any future issue that party would have relating to technical violations. This is shown to be true by the fact that an appeals process with the courts exists, and that the court's standards of judgment do not consider ulterior motives of the aggrieved party (fair or unfair) for things such as aesthetic opposition - it is concerned with the technicalities, in this case that technicality being a setback violation presumbably.[/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