Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Real Estate
Reply to "Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Sorry rules are rules. I don't care if you've poured the concrete or framed or did all the plumbing and electricity and already put in custom Laura Ashley drapes with little teacups all over them. In fact, I relish the fact that you have to tear it down at that point because you didn't follow the rules each step of the way. It will be a warning for others. [/quote] Those rules also include the exception processes for addressing mistakes. Those need to be followed, too.[/quote] Reasons for a dimensional variance: [quote] Strict compliance with the standard would unreasonably prevent the landowner from using the property for a permitted use or would render conformity necessarily burdensome. The particular request, or a lesser relaxation of ordinance standard, would provide substantial justice to the landowner and neighbors; The plight is due to unique circumstances of property and is not shared by neighboring properties in the same zone. The problem is not self-created. [/quote] I don't see any of these arguments passing muster. [/quote] I'm definitely not a lawyer, but: 1) The court decisions mentioned previously seem to apply only to variances and not local ordinances allowing these kinds of limited, special exceptions. 2) Other case law suggest courts do not apply limitations on BZA decisions nearly as much as the pp's brief references suggested, even when limited to variances. 3) The approved plan, despite already containing the measurement error, provides a solid, albeit not definitely, basis to argue the report was not fully self inflicted. (Which doesn't seem to be a key point anyway if this isn't a variance.) I don't know the full details of this case, laws, or precedents, but there seems to be room for the homeowner to make a solid legal argument.[/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