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]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]

To respond to 3), the government didn't draw up the plans. Given the history, I suspect the plans included a guesstimate of the property boundaries based on the fence, or simply ignored the setbacks. Otherwise, you could argue that any of the work that was done incorrectly is acceptable because "the county approved it." [/quote]

Yes, I acknowledged that the measurement error was made in the submitted plans prior to approval. That doesn't change this. Although I imagine they'd want to be convinced it was actually a mistake. And this wouldn't be for determining acceptability- it would be for determining whether you could seek a variance.

Regardless, it doesn't seem to strictly apply in this case because the homeowner probably won't need to use the variance process.[/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