Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Courtney has her backyard shed in the setback. In two, actually. Maybe she thought they should cancel each other out. Will one of you tell her?

So we’re back to the verging-on-creepy posts about the neighbor again, I see.

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Courtney has her backyard shed in the setback. In two, actually. Maybe she thought they should cancel each other out. Will one of you tell her?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage.

Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements.

Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?

So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact?

So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?

Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed.

The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.

The problem is that it isn’t just 6 inches that’s the problem. It’s six inches all along the part of the wall that intrudes on the set back, with all of that extending 30 feet in height. That’s a lot of volume that is too close to the property line, so a very big mistake. It is very noticeable to the neighbors and anyone walking past. It is definitely not insignificant.

Yes, the addition being large and tall is noticcable. Yes, it is noticeably close to the property line.

The question, though, is whether moving it 6 inches back would change that in any meaningful way. I don't think it would.

The important point is that the law requires it to be six inches further back from the property line than it is. The homeowner/contractor did not take the actions he could have taken to line up the foundation correctly, so now it is closer to the property line than the zoning regulations allow.
The owner was careless in not having a pre construction survey done. Unfortunately, the mistake is noticeable. It’s up to the county to decide what actions will need to be taken.

Anonymous wrote:Greenbrier is a dump. Who cares?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage.

Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements.

Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?

So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact?

So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?

Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed.

The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.

The problem is that it isn’t just 6 inches that’s the problem. It’s six inches all along the part of the wall that intrudes on the set back, with all of that extending 30 feet in height. That’s a lot of volume that is too close to the property line, so a very big mistake. It is very noticeable to the neighbors and anyone walking past. It is definitely not insignificant.

Yes, the addition being large and tall is noticcable. Yes, it is noticeably close to the property line.

The question, though, is whether moving it 6 inches back would change that in any meaningful way. I don't think it would.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage.

Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements.

Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?

So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact?

So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?

Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed.

The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.

The problem is that it isn’t just 6 inches that’s the problem. It’s six inches all along the part of the wall that intrudes on the set back, with all of that extending 30 feet in height. That’s a lot of volume that is too close to the property line, so a very big mistake. It is very noticeable to the neighbors and anyone walking past. It is definitely not insignificant.

+1

6” doesn’t sound like much, but it’s 6” of a 3-story building structure spanning the depth of the house, which could be 40 + ft. That is a lot of extra square footage looming next to the neighbor’s home.

I’m also wondering whether a 30 ft tall structure could be built had they followed the set back requirement. I imagine shaving off 6” would change the roofline. It’s possible a slightly smaller footprint would require a lower roofline. Maybe something this large couldn’t feasibly be built within the confines of the setback. So I think it’s disingenuous to just wave this off as “only” 6 inches. I’d be curious what an architect has to say about the plan design conforming to the set back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage.

Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements.

Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?

So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact?

So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?

Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed.

The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.

The problem is that it isn’t just 6 inches that’s the problem. It’s six inches all along the part of the wall that intrudes on the set back, with all of that extending 30 feet in height. That’s a lot of volume that is too close to the property line, so a very big mistake. It is very noticeable to the neighbors and anyone walking past. It is definitely not insignificant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage.

Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements.

Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?

So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact?

So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?

Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed.

The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.

The problem is that it isn’t just 6 inches that’s the problem. It’s six inches all along the part of the wall that intrudes on the set back, with all of that extending 30 feet in height. That’s a lot of volume that is too close to the property line, so a very big mistake. It is very noticeable to the neighbors and anyone walking past. It is definitely not insignificant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage.

Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements.

Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?

So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact?

So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?

Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed.

The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage.

Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements.

Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?

So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact?

So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?

Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed.

The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.

It is a 12 inch error, not a 6 inch error, based on the plans submitted to get the permits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage.

Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements.

Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?

So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact?

So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?

Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed.

The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.

County rezoning has mandated tear downs for much less.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage.

Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements.

Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?

So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact?

So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?

Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed.

The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeowner changed his approved plans from a garage to a window/door at the 1st floor front of the home. The homeowner applied for this as an Amendment to his original permit but the county has not approved it yet. However, the homeowner has already constructed the addition in this front area in a way he’s seeking in the amendment. There are now steps built going from the old garage space (now door/window) to the driveway. Obviously not going to be a garage.

Those steps come further out into the front yard than the original plans. The original approved permit showed the plans at a 21 ft front setback, so county approved as meeting the front setback requirements.

Now with the garage redesign and added steps, is the homeowner still within the County’s 20 ft minimum for the front setback?

So is tge homeowner just deliberately building whatever he wants in complete violation of zoning laws and in contradiction to his permits, with a plan to just get approval after the fact?

So can everyone else doing renovations in Fairfax County use the same method?

Momentarily setting aside the side setback, everything else that has been brought up seems to be correctible. There seems to be just enough room for a second parking spot. And if there are stairs going into the new addition that create a new setback problem, those could be removed.

The side sideback isn't correctible. It is a mistake that never should have happened, but it did. It would be a grossly disproportionate response to require a teardown over 6 inches, both in this case and in general. If there's really a concern about encouraging such mistakes, a better deterrent would be a fine, not a teardown when there is no meaningful impact. I don't think that's a realistic concern, though.