Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.

Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.

.

What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.

We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.

They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.

The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.

To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.

The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.

In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.

That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.

Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.

You'd be wrong.

From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).

Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.

This is imperceptible. There is no impact.

It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.

Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.

Ok, that's what you mean.

Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.

Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.

No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.

You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.

Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.

The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.

Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.

I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?

What will look effectively the same?

It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.

There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.

If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.

I think you know that.

That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?

The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.

Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.

They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built

They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.

I don't think you understand what "deliberately" means.

He made a mistake. From the aerial photos, there's a fence between their properties that has effectively served as the dividing line between their yards. It appears he thought it was the dividing line. Was that a good or safe assumption to make? Obviously not, that's why it was a mistake.

Eliminating the approved garage to add a 3rd apartment that would not have been approved is pretty deliberate.

This doesn't have any apartment units.

The permit is for 6 toilets, 8 sinks, 6 showers...

And? You've never seen a house with a bathroom off each bedroom? It's admittedly more common with higher end builds, but it isn't wild. And it certainly doesn't make them apartments.

How many kitchens? Living spaces?

Your continued reference to "apartments" is just a dog whistle for your underlying problem with this home(owner).

Don't be obtuse. That amount of plumbing would typically be found in a 10k SF build, which this is not. Is the plumbing infrastructure going to and from the house even set up to handle that amount of usage?

The fact that you seem to honestly believe this is... wild.

No, it isn't an apartment. Anyone capable of managing their emotions should have no difficulty seeing that. This is obviously being built for his family. It is not laid out as apartments. There's absolutely no indication wants to rent any rooms out, or flip the house to someone who will. There's obviously a very challenging family situation that has brought them together, and a family that size needs more room.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.

Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.

.

What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.

We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.

They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.

The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.

To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.

The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.

In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.

That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.

Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.

You'd be wrong.

From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).

Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.

This is imperceptible. There is no impact.

It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.

Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.

Ok, that's what you mean.

Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.

Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.

No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.

You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.

Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.

The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.

Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.

I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?

What will look effectively the same?

It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.

There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.

If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.

I think you know that.

That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?

The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.

Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.

They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built

They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.

I don't think you understand what "deliberately" means.

He made a mistake. From the aerial photos, there's a fence between their properties that has effectively served as the dividing line between their yards. It appears he thought it was the dividing line. Was that a good or safe assumption to make? Obviously not, that's why it was a mistake.

Eliminating the approved garage to add a 3rd apartment that would not have been approved is pretty deliberate.

This doesn't have any apartment units.

The permit is for 6 toilets, 8 sinks, 6 showers...

And? You've never seen a house with a bathroom off each bedroom? It's admittedly more common with higher end builds, but it isn't wild. And it certainly doesn't make them apartments.

How many kitchens? Living spaces?

Your continued reference to "apartments" is just a dog whistle for your underlying problem with this home(owner).

Don't be obtuse. That amount of plumbing would typically be found in a 10k SF build, which this is not. Is the plumbing infrastructure going to and from the house even set up to handle that amount of usage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.

Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.

.

What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.

We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.

They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.

The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.

To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.

The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.

In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.

That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.

Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.

You'd be wrong.

From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).

Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.

This is imperceptible. There is no impact.

It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.

Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.

Ok, that's what you mean.

Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.

Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.

No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.

You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.

Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.

The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.

Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.

I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?

What will look effectively the same?

It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.

There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.

If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.

I think you know that.

That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?

The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.

Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.

They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built

They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.

I don't think you understand what "deliberately" means.

He made a mistake. From the aerial photos, there's a fence between their properties that has effectively served as the dividing line between their yards. It appears he thought it was the dividing line. Was that a good or safe assumption to make? Obviously not, that's why it was a mistake.

Eliminating the approved garage to add a 3rd apartment that would not have been approved is pretty deliberate.

This doesn't have any apartment units.

The permit is for 6 toilets, 8 sinks, 6 showers...

And? You've never seen a house with a bathroom off each bedroom? It's admittedly more common with higher end builds, but it isn't wild. And it certainly doesn't make them apartments.

How many kitchens? Living spaces?

Your continued reference to "apartments" is just a dog whistle for your underlying problem with this home(owner).

One only needs to look at the building to see that the owner was putting in a 3 unit apartment complex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.

Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.

.

What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.

We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.

They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.

The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.

To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.

The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.

In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.

That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.

Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.

You'd be wrong.

From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).

Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.

This is imperceptible. There is no impact.

It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.

Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.

Ok, that's what you mean.

Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.

Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.

No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.

You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.

Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.

The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.

Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.

I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?

What will look effectively the same?

It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.

There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.

If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.

I think you know that.

That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?

The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.

Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.

They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built

They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.

I don't think you understand what "deliberately" means.

He made a mistake. From the aerial photos, there's a fence between their properties that has effectively served as the dividing line between their yards. It appears he thought it was the dividing line. Was that a good or safe assumption to make? Obviously not, that's why it was a mistake.

He clearly made quite a few “mistakes” if it makes you feel better to call them mistakes. Maybe the biggest mistake is not having a proper land survey done prior to construction and not building the structure exactly as it was originally approved.

You haven't built many houses if you think any deviations from the initial plan is a horrible mistake. In the case of the garage, the mistake was not submitting a revised plan, particularly since it sounds like there may have been other changes. But it isn't uncommon to file those after the fact.

The lack of a survey was a big mistake. Though, I don't know the full context, and I doubt you do, either. Based on street view photos, it looks like the fence existed between the properties when 4208 didn't have a full fence (but 4210 did). He may have had a reasonably good reason to think the fence was either on the property line or perhaps even slightly on his property. It further looks like the neighbors did complain when they put up planters back there against the fence, further suggesting they were both under the impression the fence was on the line.

I still think it was a big mistake to start a controversial project so close to the setback line without a survey. But I think it's an understandable mistake. Unless you're from the DMV, I don't think you expect people to try to blow something up over a such a short distance. And I also strongly suspect he underestimated how much people would dislike the addition.

So I think he figured the fence ought to be close, and the 6 inches gave some wiggle room, so a survey probably felt like a bureaucratic waste of money where there was no practical issue. But it turns out the fence was off by more than expected, the hatred of the addition was strong.

So you’re confirming that his biggest mistake was not hiring a professional to ensure that things were handled properly. Professionals know to never assume fence lines are proper indicators of where property lines are.

People are outraged because the entire scope and construction of the addition is horrendous.

No, they're outraged by the design. You know that. Most of these things weren't even known before there was outrage.

Why does it matter what caused and when there was “outrage”? Who cares?

And “design” encompasses the scope and construction of a project, so not making much of a point being made here.

You brought up the outrage. The outrage was and is over the design. Since the design is legal, you and others are trying to find a different excuse to use to kill the project.

That's the attitude that has put me solidly in the homeowner's camp, despite his mistakes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.

Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.

.

What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.

We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.

They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.

The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.

To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.

The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.

In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.

That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.

Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.

You'd be wrong.

From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).

Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.

This is imperceptible. There is no impact.

It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.

Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.

Ok, that's what you mean.

Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.

Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.

No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.

You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.

Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.

The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.

Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.

I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?

What will look effectively the same?

It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.

There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.

If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.

I think you know that.

That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?

The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.

Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.

They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built

They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.

I don't think you understand what "deliberately" means.

He made a mistake. From the aerial photos, there's a fence between their properties that has effectively served as the dividing line between their yards. It appears he thought it was the dividing line. Was that a good or safe assumption to make? Obviously not, that's why it was a mistake.

He clearly made quite a few “mistakes” if it makes you feel better to call them mistakes. Maybe the biggest mistake is not having a proper land survey done prior to construction and not building the structure exactly as it was originally approved.

You haven't built many houses if you think any deviations from the initial plan is a horrible mistake. In the case of the garage, the mistake was not submitting a revised plan, particularly since it sounds like there may have been other changes. But it isn't uncommon to file those after the fact.

The lack of a survey was a big mistake. Though, I don't know the full context, and I doubt you do, either. Based on street view photos, it looks like the fence existed between the properties when 4208 didn't have a full fence (but 4210 did). He may have had a reasonably good reason to think the fence was either on the property line or perhaps even slightly on his property. It further looks like the neighbors did complain when they put up planters back there against the fence, further suggesting they were both under the impression the fence was on the line.

I still think it was a big mistake to start a controversial project so close to the setback line without a survey. But I think it's an understandable mistake. Unless you're from the DMV, I don't think you expect people to try to blow something up over a such a short distance. And I also strongly suspect he underestimated how much people would dislike the addition.

So I think he figured the fence ought to be close, and the 6 inches gave some wiggle room, so a survey probably felt like a bureaucratic waste of money where there was no practical issue. But it turns out the fence was off by more than expected, the hatred of the addition was strong.

It makes no difference whatsoever how long the fence was in place. A fence is not a property line. Anyone who owns a home knows this. You don’t even have to be an engineer to know this. There is no “reasonably good reason” to think a fence is a property line.

Was not getting a survey done motivated by sloppiness or cheapness? Either way, it was ridiculous to not get a survey done before building a structure of this size. And for someone with the background and training to be an engineer, it’s particularly egregious.

It doesn't matter legally, but I disagree that it doesn't matter regarding how flagrant the error was.

And in particular, I think the suggestion that this was a deliberate act, rather than a mistake, is absurd.

PP you’re replying to, I made no indication that the act was deliberate.

And seriously, it really doesn’t matter that there’s a fence there or how long the fence has been there. It’s just silly that someone who is an engineer thought it was a good idea to save money or just forgot to have a pre construction survey done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.

Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.

.

What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.

We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.

They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.

The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.

To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.

The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.

In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.

That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.

Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.

You'd be wrong.

From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).

Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.

This is imperceptible. There is no impact.

It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.

Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.

Ok, that's what you mean.

Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.

Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.

No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.

You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.

Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.

The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.

Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.

I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?

What will look effectively the same?

It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.

There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.

If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.

I think you know that.

That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?

The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.

Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.

They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built

They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.

I don't think you understand what "deliberately" means.

He made a mistake. From the aerial photos, there's a fence between their properties that has effectively served as the dividing line between their yards. It appears he thought it was the dividing line. Was that a good or safe assumption to make? Obviously not, that's why it was a mistake.

Eliminating the approved garage to add a 3rd apartment that would not have been approved is pretty deliberate.

This doesn't have any apartment units.

The permit is for 6 toilets, 8 sinks, 6 showers...

And? You've never seen a house with a bathroom off each bedroom? It's admittedly more common with higher end builds, but it isn't wild. And it certainly doesn't make them apartments.

How many kitchens? Living spaces?

Your continued reference to "apartments" is just a dog whistle for your underlying problem with this home(owner).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.

Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.

.

What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.

We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.

They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.

The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.

To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.

The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.

In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.

That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.

Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.

You'd be wrong.

From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).

Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.

This is imperceptible. There is no impact.

It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.

Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.

Ok, that's what you mean.

Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.

Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.

No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.

You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.

Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.

The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.

Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.

I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?

What will look effectively the same?

It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.

There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.

If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.

I think you know that.

That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?

The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.

Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.

They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built

They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.

I don't think you understand what "deliberately" means.

He made a mistake. From the aerial photos, there's a fence between their properties that has effectively served as the dividing line between their yards. It appears he thought it was the dividing line. Was that a good or safe assumption to make? Obviously not, that's why it was a mistake.

He clearly made quite a few “mistakes” if it makes you feel better to call them mistakes. Maybe the biggest mistake is not having a proper land survey done prior to construction and not building the structure exactly as it was originally approved.

You haven't built many houses if you think any deviations from the initial plan is a horrible mistake. In the case of the garage, the mistake was not submitting a revised plan, particularly since it sounds like there may have been other changes. But it isn't uncommon to file those after the fact.

The lack of a survey was a big mistake. Though, I don't know the full context, and I doubt you do, either. Based on street view photos, it looks like the fence existed between the properties when 4208 didn't have a full fence (but 4210 did). He may have had a reasonably good reason to think the fence was either on the property line or perhaps even slightly on his property. It further looks like the neighbors did complain when they put up planters back there against the fence, further suggesting they were both under the impression the fence was on the line.

I still think it was a big mistake to start a controversial project so close to the setback line without a survey. But I think it's an understandable mistake. Unless you're from the DMV, I don't think you expect people to try to blow something up over a such a short distance. And I also strongly suspect he underestimated how much people would dislike the addition.

So I think he figured the fence ought to be close, and the 6 inches gave some wiggle room, so a survey probably felt like a bureaucratic waste of money where there was no practical issue. But it turns out the fence was off by more than expected, the hatred of the addition was strong.

It makes no difference whatsoever how long the fence was in place. A fence is not a property line. Anyone who owns a home knows this. You don’t even have to be an engineer to know this. There is no “reasonably good reason” to think a fence is a property line.

Was not getting a survey done motivated by sloppiness or cheapness? Either way, it was ridiculous to not get a survey done before building a structure of this size. And for someone with the background and training to be an engineer, it’s particularly egregious.

It doesn't matter legally, but I disagree that it doesn't matter regarding how flagrant the error was.

And in particular, I think the suggestion that this was a deliberate act, rather than a mistake, is absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.

Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.

.

What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.

We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.

They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.

The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.

To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.

The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.

In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.

That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.

Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.

You'd be wrong.

From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).

Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.

This is imperceptible. There is no impact.

It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.

Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.

Ok, that's what you mean.

Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.

Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.

No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.

You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.

Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.

The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.

Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.

I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?

What will look effectively the same?

It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.

There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.

If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.

I think you know that.

That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?

The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.

Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.

They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built

They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.

I don't think you understand what "deliberately" means.

He made a mistake. From the aerial photos, there's a fence between their properties that has effectively served as the dividing line between their yards. It appears he thought it was the dividing line. Was that a good or safe assumption to make? Obviously not, that's why it was a mistake.

Eliminating the approved garage to add a 3rd apartment that would not have been approved is pretty deliberate.

This doesn't have any apartment units.

The permit is for 6 toilets, 8 sinks, 6 showers...

And? You've never seen a house with a bathroom off each bedroom? It's admittedly more common with higher end builds, but it isn't wild. And it certainly doesn't make them apartments.

How many kitchens? Living spaces?

Your continued reference to "apartments" is just a dog whistle for your underlying problem with this home(owner).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.

Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.

.

What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.

We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.

They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.

The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.

To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.

The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.

In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.

That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.

Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.

You'd be wrong.

From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).

Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.

This is imperceptible. There is no impact.

It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.

Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.

Ok, that's what you mean.

Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.

Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.

No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.

You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.

Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.

The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.

Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.

I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?

What will look effectively the same?

It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.

There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.

If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.

I think you know that.

That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?

The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.

Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.

They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built

They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.

I don't think you understand what "deliberately" means.

He made a mistake. From the aerial photos, there's a fence between their properties that has effectively served as the dividing line between their yards. It appears he thought it was the dividing line. Was that a good or safe assumption to make? Obviously not, that's why it was a mistake.

He clearly made quite a few “mistakes” if it makes you feel better to call them mistakes. Maybe the biggest mistake is not having a proper land survey done prior to construction and not building the structure exactly as it was originally approved.

You haven't built many houses if you think any deviations from the initial plan is a horrible mistake. In the case of the garage, the mistake was not submitting a revised plan, particularly since it sounds like there may have been other changes. But it isn't uncommon to file those after the fact.

The lack of a survey was a big mistake. Though, I don't know the full context, and I doubt you do, either. Based on street view photos, it looks like the fence existed between the properties when 4208 didn't have a full fence (but 4210 did). He may have had a reasonably good reason to think the fence was either on the property line or perhaps even slightly on his property. It further looks like the neighbors did complain when they put up planters back there against the fence, further suggesting they were both under the impression the fence was on the line.

I still think it was a big mistake to start a controversial project so close to the setback line without a survey. But I think it's an understandable mistake. Unless you're from the DMV, I don't think you expect people to try to blow something up over a such a short distance. And I also strongly suspect he underestimated how much people would dislike the addition.

So I think he figured the fence ought to be close, and the 6 inches gave some wiggle room, so a survey probably felt like a bureaucratic waste of money where there was no practical issue. But it turns out the fence was off by more than expected, the hatred of the addition was strong.

So you’re confirming that his biggest mistake was not hiring a professional to ensure that things were handled properly. Professionals know to never assume fence lines are proper indicators of where property lines are.

People are outraged because the entire scope and construction of the addition is horrendous.

No, they're outraged by the design. You know that. Most of these things weren't even known before there was outrage.

Why does it matter what caused and when there was “outrage”? Who cares?

And “design” encompasses the scope and construction of a project, so not making much of a point being made here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.

Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.

.

What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.

We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.

They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.

The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.

To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.

The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.

In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.

That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.

Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.

You'd be wrong.

From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).

Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.

This is imperceptible. There is no impact.

It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.

Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.

Ok, that's what you mean.

Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.

Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.

No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.

You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.

Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.

The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.

Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.

I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?

What will look effectively the same?

It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.

There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.

If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.

I think you know that.

That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?

The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.

Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.

They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built

They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.

I don't think you understand what "deliberately" means.

He made a mistake. From the aerial photos, there's a fence between their properties that has effectively served as the dividing line between their yards. It appears he thought it was the dividing line. Was that a good or safe assumption to make? Obviously not, that's why it was a mistake.

Eliminating the approved garage to add a 3rd apartment that would not have been approved is pretty deliberate.

This doesn't have any apartment units.

The permit is for 6 toilets, 8 sinks, 6 showers...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.

Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.

.

What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.

We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.

They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.

The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.

To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.

The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.

In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.

That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.

Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.

You'd be wrong.

From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).

Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.

This is imperceptible. There is no impact.

It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.

Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.

Ok, that's what you mean.

Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.

Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.

No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.

You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.

Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.

The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.

Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.

I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?

What will look effectively the same?

It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.

There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.

If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.

I think you know that.

That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?

The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.

Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.

They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built

They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.

I don't think you understand what "deliberately" means.

He made a mistake. From the aerial photos, there's a fence between their properties that has effectively served as the dividing line between their yards. It appears he thought it was the dividing line. Was that a good or safe assumption to make? Obviously not, that's why it was a mistake.

He clearly made quite a few “mistakes” if it makes you feel better to call them mistakes. Maybe the biggest mistake is not having a proper land survey done prior to construction and not building the structure exactly as it was originally approved.

You haven't built many houses if you think any deviations from the initial plan is a horrible mistake. In the case of the garage, the mistake was not submitting a revised plan, particularly since it sounds like there may have been other changes. But it isn't uncommon to file those after the fact.

The lack of a survey was a big mistake. Though, I don't know the full context, and I doubt you do, either. Based on street view photos, it looks like the fence existed between the properties when 4208 didn't have a full fence (but 4210 did). He may have had a reasonably good reason to think the fence was either on the property line or perhaps even slightly on his property. It further looks like the neighbors did complain when they put up planters back there against the fence, further suggesting they were both under the impression the fence was on the line.

I still think it was a big mistake to start a controversial project so close to the setback line without a survey. But I think it's an understandable mistake. Unless you're from the DMV, I don't think you expect people to try to blow something up over a such a short distance. And I also strongly suspect he underestimated how much people would dislike the addition.

So I think he figured the fence ought to be close, and the 6 inches gave some wiggle room, so a survey probably felt like a bureaucratic waste of money where there was no practical issue. But it turns out the fence was off by more than expected, the hatred of the addition was strong.

It makes no difference whatsoever how long the fence was in place. A fence is not a property line. Anyone who owns a home knows this. You don’t even have to be an engineer to know this. There is no “reasonably good reason” to think a fence is a property line.

Was not getting a survey done motivated by sloppiness or cheapness? Either way, it was ridiculous to not get a survey done before building a structure of this size. And for someone with the background and training to be an engineer, it’s particularly egregious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.

Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.

.

What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.

We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.

They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.

The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.

To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.

The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.

In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.

That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.

Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.

You'd be wrong.

From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).

Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.

This is imperceptible. There is no impact.

It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.

Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.

Ok, that's what you mean.

Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.

Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.

No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.

You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.

Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.

The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.

Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.

I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?

What will look effectively the same?

It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.

There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.

If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.

I think you know that.

That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?

The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.

Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.

They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built

They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.

I don't think you understand what "deliberately" means.

He made a mistake. From the aerial photos, there's a fence between their properties that has effectively served as the dividing line between their yards. It appears he thought it was the dividing line. Was that a good or safe assumption to make? Obviously not, that's why it was a mistake.

Eliminating the approved garage to add a 3rd apartment that would not have been approved is pretty deliberate.

This doesn't have any apartment units.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.

Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.

.

What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.

We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.

They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.

The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.

To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.

The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.

In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.

That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.

Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.

You'd be wrong.

From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).

Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.

This is imperceptible. There is no impact.

It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.

Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.

Ok, that's what you mean.

Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.

Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.

No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.

You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.

Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.

The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.

Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.

I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?

What will look effectively the same?

It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.

There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.

If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.

I think you know that.

That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?

The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.

Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.

They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built

They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.

I don't think you understand what "deliberately" means.

He made a mistake. From the aerial photos, there's a fence between their properties that has effectively served as the dividing line between their yards. It appears he thought it was the dividing line. Was that a good or safe assumption to make? Obviously not, that's why it was a mistake.

He clearly made quite a few “mistakes” if it makes you feel better to call them mistakes. Maybe the biggest mistake is not having a proper land survey done prior to construction and not building the structure exactly as it was originally approved.

You haven't built many houses if you think any deviations from the initial plan is a horrible mistake. In the case of the garage, the mistake was not submitting a revised plan, particularly since it sounds like there may have been other changes. But it isn't uncommon to file those after the fact.

The lack of a survey was a big mistake. Though, I don't know the full context, and I doubt you do, either. Based on street view photos, it looks like the fence existed between the properties when 4208 didn't have a full fence (but 4210 did). He may have had a reasonably good reason to think the fence was either on the property line or perhaps even slightly on his property. It further looks like the neighbors did complain when they put up planters back there against the fence, further suggesting they were both under the impression the fence was on the line.

I still think it was a big mistake to start a controversial project so close to the setback line without a survey. But I think it's an understandable mistake. Unless you're from the DMV, I don't think you expect people to try to blow something up over a such a short distance. And I also strongly suspect he underestimated how much people would dislike the addition.

So I think he figured the fence ought to be close, and the 6 inches gave some wiggle room, so a survey probably felt like a bureaucratic waste of money where there was no practical issue. But it turns out the fence was off by more than expected, the hatred of the addition was strong.

So you’re confirming that his biggest mistake was not hiring a professional to ensure that things were handled properly. Professionals know to never assume fence lines are proper indicators of where property lines are.

People are outraged because the entire scope and construction of the addition is horrendous.

No, they're outraged by the design. You know that. Most of these things weren't even known before there was outrage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She went on TV and had a helicopter fly over her house.

And?

Does asking questions about something happening in one’s neighborhood give others the right to make creepy comments about the person?

You gotta wonder if comments like this would be made if a man had asked these questions.

How is it creepy? Should have I instead gone on Facebook and posted the address? Then went to the media to have them take pictures of her house? Because that's somehow less creepy?

Yeah, it does make you wonder how this would have gone down if Mike was a woman and Courtney was a man.

Every setback is sacred,
Every setback is great!
If you’re six inches over,
You’ve committed a grave mistake!

I suggest you open a complaint with the zoning authority in Fairfax County. It's online. The shed might even be unpermitted.

This happened with a neighbor on my street. Another neighbor reported them. The county sent out notices to our whole block that there would be a hearing where we could state our concerns about the shed. The neighbor who reported it said they were against it, but all the other neighbors who came to the hearing were fine with it. The board gave them a variance for the shed.

Apparently this is fairly common and as long as most of the neighbors are okay with it, the allow it.

.

What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal.

We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood.

They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant.

The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others.

To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction.

The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building.

In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street.

That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible.

Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area.

You'd be wrong.

From the neighbor's front door, their back porch, the visual difference in height would be 1% (difference in visual width is less- about 0.85%).

Even going right up to their own setback, the difference in height is only 1.6%.

This is imperceptible. There is no impact.

It’s not just the difference to the immediate neighbors, it’s also the difference to how it can be seen from the street and from behind.

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't going to be a difference from that perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It can be seen as closer to the property line, thus giving a sense of being crowded in. It goes to the overall character of the neighborhood.

Also, we’re considering this six inches before gutters, downspouts, siding, and shutters have been added. The intrusion will be extended by several inches by these and will have more of a visual effect overall.

Ok, that's what you mean.

Suppose the neighbor's garage is built right on the setback. I don't think it is, but let use that as a worst-case scenario. 15.5 vs 16 ft is a 3% change. Still below what most people notice.

Again, the height of thirty feet makes that six or so inches have a far greater impact. Something that is taller is more obvious to the eye, and in this case gives a sense of the neighborhood being more crowded, less spacious because of being closer to the property line. The impact of which calls into consideration whether the addition is in harmony with the community.

No, it doesn't. That 30 ft height applies whether it's 16 ft or 15.5 ft gap.

You're free to try this arguement at the hearing, but you're going to look silly when they bring renderings.

Nobody is trying to relitigate the height of the addition.

The point is being made that the six inches over the setback have an increased impact because the six inches goes up thirty feet into the air. The taller something is, the more noticeable it is. It is more noticeable because it is taller, so has the effect of looking more crowded in, which is different from the overall look of the rest of the community. So that increases the adverse impact of the addition being located six inches over the setback line.

Again, you're free to argue that, but we're taking about a difference that is imperceptible.

I get it- that might be the best argument there is. So if I was the homeowner, I'd come with renderings showing the view from the neighbor's house and the sidewalk. Do you disagree that they're going to look effectively the same?

What will look effectively the same?

It might be that you are too close to this project to see that people are talking about perception here. To you it might be imperceptible, and I get that you want to do some math to show exactly how imperceptible it is. But to other people, the six inches is perceptible and goes to the consideration of harmony and consistency in the neighborhood.

There are limits in perception. If we were talking about a, say, a foot, then we'd be getting into the area of a small, but perceivable, difference where you could argue subjectivity. This is below that, though.

If we created 3D models and each day showed you a rendering with a slightly different angle/distance, you wouldn't do any better than guessing at whether I showed you one spaced at 16 ft vs 15.5 ft.

I think you know that.

That could be a fun thing to try at the hearing. Do you have to be a neighbor to testify?

The wall is a foot off from where it was supposed to be based on the plans.

Yes, but they don't need a setback reduction of a foot. They're allowed to build up to the setback line. The special permit is what would allow them to go past it.

They weren't approved to build what they built where they built it in the design that they built

They appeared to have deliberately mislead the zoning board.

I don't think you understand what "deliberately" means.

He made a mistake. From the aerial photos, there's a fence between their properties that has effectively served as the dividing line between their yards. It appears he thought it was the dividing line. Was that a good or safe assumption to make? Obviously not, that's why it was a mistake.

He clearly made quite a few “mistakes” if it makes you feel better to call them mistakes. Maybe the biggest mistake is not having a proper land survey done prior to construction and not building the structure exactly as it was originally approved.

You haven't built many houses if you think any deviations from the initial plan is a horrible mistake. In the case of the garage, the mistake was not submitting a revised plan, particularly since it sounds like there may have been other changes. But it isn't uncommon to file those after the fact.

The lack of a survey was a big mistake. Though, I don't know the full context, and I doubt you do, either. Based on street view photos, it looks like the fence existed between the properties when 4208 didn't have a full fence (but 4210 did). He may have had a reasonably good reason to think the fence was either on the property line or perhaps even slightly on his property. It further looks like the neighbors did complain when they put up planters back there against the fence, further suggesting they were both under the impression the fence was on the line.

I still think it was a big mistake to start a controversial project so close to the setback line without a survey. But I think it's an understandable mistake. Unless you're from the DMV, I don't think you expect people to try to blow something up over a such a short distance. And I also strongly suspect he underestimated how much people would dislike the addition.

So I think he figured the fence ought to be close, and the 6 inches gave some wiggle room, so a survey probably felt like a bureaucratic waste of money where there was no practical issue. But it turns out the fence was off by more than expected, the hatred of the addition was strong.

So you’re confirming that his biggest mistake was not hiring a professional to ensure that things were handled properly. Professionals know to never assume fence lines are proper indicators of where property lines are.

People are outraged because the entire scope and construction of the addition is horrendous.

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows a fence line does NOT equal a property line.

Homeowners and surveyors typically recommend building a fence just inside the property line so it’s clear who owns the land the fence sits on.