Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the best solution, if money is available, is for the neighbor to tear down their garage and build a mirroring structure, maybe with a nice rooftop patio so they can have sun again.

As much as I like that idea, it is clear these two neighbors should split up. The well has been poisoned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

If you're concerned with subjective aesthetics, and want to substitute your judgement for property owners, then you should have bought a home in an HOA. You knew the risk (and reward) when you picked this home. There are plenty of middle class homes with HOAs, and they're always looking for busybodies to serve on design review committees. You'd have a great time.

Well, I’m not sure who you think you are conversing with here, but I already live in a community with an HOA. And we have people who serve on committees who are not busybodies but people who care about their community and are willing to put in volunteer hours on a regular basis to help others. They run a swim team and put on seasonal parties and celebrations for the children in the neighborhood throughout the year. They care about and help other people beyond just their own families.

I'm talking about the design review committee. Those are almost always staffed by busybodies until things get so bad that they clean house. Over time busybodies naturally flock back, because it's mostly only retired women that have the time to do it (if you follow the local/state laws, it becomes a much bigger time commitment than serving on the HOA Board), and the cycle repeats.

If that sounds good to you, great! As you probably observed, there are plenty of homes in neighborhoods with HOAs. But some people don't want to relinquish that much control over their own property to a neighborhood cabal, and that's ok, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There's nothing wild about questioning having 6 full bathrooms (2 per floor) in this addition, Mike. It's not typical around here, even for larger mansions.

People living in mansions probably aren't caring for their elderly parents or adult siblings.

I live in a Loudoun suburb with large McMansions. There are some multiple generational homes nearby. Since race is being brought into the conversation, I know at least one family in this situation that is Caucasian and some Asian families.

No one has an issue. The homes were intentionally bought to support the multiple generations. The outside of the homes didn’t change.

This homeowner is trying to change the outside of the home. While the current homeowner says he is trying to use the home for generations of the same family, the next owner could turn it into a group residential facility with the way it is being developed.

A group residential facility allows for no more than 8 mentally ill, intellectually disabled, or developmentally disabled persons. Persons could also be aged, infirm, or disabled. Both types of group homes do have to be licensed by the state.

Maybe even the current homeowners want to create a group residential facility for their mentally ill child/brother that assaulted staffers at Gerry Connolly’s office in 2023? He had pleaded guilty by reason of insanity.

It's a house with bedrooms, so yes, I suppose someone could try to turn it into group home. That's true of any reasonably large home. They're also generally allowed by law. That's a strange thing to fixate on, particularly given that most of us know why this family wants more space right now.

I’m not in the know with “most of us” here. What is the reason this family wants more space right now?

Read the post above that describes the current layout and bedrooms of the home (from someone opposed to the addition, no less) and then think about what that means for a family this size.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

What are you trying to say here? I have no idea what the current layout and bedrooms means for a family of this size. Is there some hidden meaning here?
Please explain.

It's a large family with several adults and a couple kids. The current bedrooms in the house are small and not very functional- e.g., the two upstairs in the original home have sloped ceilings. There's very little common living space, and what it does have isn't going to comfortably accommodate a family of that size.

Are you aware this is a multigenerational house that further includes adult siblings?

That's a future aspiration. The current home does not house three generations of the family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There's nothing wild about questioning having 6 full bathrooms (2 per floor) in this addition, Mike. It's not typical around here, even for larger mansions.

People living in mansions probably aren't caring for their elderly parents or adult siblings.

I live in a Loudoun suburb with large McMansions. There are some multiple generational homes nearby. Since race is being brought into the conversation, I know at least one family in this situation that is Caucasian and some Asian families.

No one has an issue. The homes were intentionally bought to support the multiple generations. The outside of the homes didn’t change.

This homeowner is trying to change the outside of the home. While the current homeowner says he is trying to use the home for generations of the same family, the next owner could turn it into a group residential facility with the way it is being developed.

A group residential facility allows for no more than 8 mentally ill, intellectually disabled, or developmentally disabled persons. Persons could also be aged, infirm, or disabled. Both types of group homes do have to be licensed by the state.

Maybe even the current homeowners want to create a group residential facility for their mentally ill child/brother that assaulted staffers at Gerry Connolly’s office in 2023? He had pleaded guilty by reason of insanity.

It's a house with bedrooms, so yes, I suppose someone could try to turn it into group home. That's true of any reasonably large home. They're also generally allowed by law. That's a strange thing to fixate on, particularly given that most of us know why this family wants more space right now.

I’m not in the know with “most of us” here. What is the reason this family wants more space right now?

Read the post above that describes the current layout and bedrooms of the home (from someone opposed to the addition, no less) and then think about what that means for a family this size.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

What are you trying to say here? I have no idea what the current layout and bedrooms means for a family of this size. Is there some hidden meaning here?
Please explain.

It's a large family with several adults and a couple kids. The current bedrooms in the house are small and not very functional- e.g., the two upstairs in the original home have sloped ceilings. There's very little common living space, and what it does have isn't going to comfortably accommodate a family of that size.

Are you aware this is a multigenerational house that further includes adult siblings?

Sounds like they have outgrown their house. Most people would simply move to a larger property to accommodate them, not try to shoehorn this add Orion onto an existing lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There's nothing wild about questioning having 6 full bathrooms (2 per floor) in this addition, Mike. It's not typical around here, even for larger mansions.

People living in mansions probably aren't caring for their elderly parents or adult siblings.

I live in a Loudoun suburb with large McMansions. There are some multiple generational homes nearby. Since race is being brought into the conversation, I know at least one family in this situation that is Caucasian and some Asian families.

No one has an issue. The homes were intentionally bought to support the multiple generations. The outside of the homes didn’t change.

This homeowner is trying to change the outside of the home. While the current homeowner says he is trying to use the home for generations of the same family, the next owner could turn it into a group residential facility with the way it is being developed.

A group residential facility allows for no more than 8 mentally ill, intellectually disabled, or developmentally disabled persons. Persons could also be aged, infirm, or disabled. Both types of group homes do have to be licensed by the state.

Maybe even the current homeowners want to create a group residential facility for their mentally ill child/brother that assaulted staffers at Gerry Connolly’s office in 2023? He had pleaded guilty by reason of insanity.

It's a house with bedrooms, so yes, I suppose someone could try to turn it into group home. That's true of any reasonably large home. They're also generally allowed by law. That's a strange thing to fixate on, particularly given that most of us know why this family wants more space right now.

I’m not in the know with “most of us” here. What is the reason this family wants more space right now?

Read the post above that describes the current layout and bedrooms of the home (from someone opposed to the addition, no less) and then think about what that means for a family this size.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

What are you trying to say here? I have no idea what the current layout and bedrooms means for a family of this size. Is there some hidden meaning here?
Please explain.

It's a large family with several adults and a couple kids. The current bedrooms in the house are small and not very functional- e.g., the two upstairs in the original home have sloped ceilings. There's very little common living space, and what it does have isn't going to comfortably accommodate a family of that size.

Are you aware this is a multigenerational house that further includes adult siblings?

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the best solution, if money is available, is for the neighbor to tear down their garage and build a mirroring structure, maybe with a nice rooftop patio so they can have sun again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There's nothing wild about questioning having 6 full bathrooms (2 per floor) in this addition, Mike. It's not typical around here, even for larger mansions.

People living in mansions probably aren't caring for their elderly parents or adult siblings.

I live in a Loudoun suburb with large McMansions. There are some multiple generational homes nearby. Since race is being brought into the conversation, I know at least one family in this situation that is Caucasian and some Asian families.

No one has an issue. The homes were intentionally bought to support the multiple generations. The outside of the homes didn’t change.

This homeowner is trying to change the outside of the home. While the current homeowner says he is trying to use the home for generations of the same family, the next owner could turn it into a group residential facility with the way it is being developed.

A group residential facility allows for no more than 8 mentally ill, intellectually disabled, or developmentally disabled persons. Persons could also be aged, infirm, or disabled. Both types of group homes do have to be licensed by the state.

Maybe even the current homeowners want to create a group residential facility for their mentally ill child/brother that assaulted staffers at Gerry Connolly’s office in 2023? He had pleaded guilty by reason of insanity.

It's a house with bedrooms, so yes, I suppose someone could try to turn it into group home. That's true of any reasonably large home. They're also generally allowed by law. That's a strange thing to fixate on, particularly given that most of us know why this family wants more space right now.

I’m not in the know with “most of us” here. What is the reason this family wants more space right now?

Read the post above that describes the current layout and bedrooms of the home (from someone opposed to the addition, no less) and then think about what that means for a family this size.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

What are you trying to say here? I have no idea what the current layout and bedrooms means for a family of this size. Is there some hidden meaning here?
Please explain.

It's a large family with several adults and a couple kids. The current bedrooms in the house are small and not very functional- e.g., the two upstairs in the original home have sloped ceilings. There's very little common living space, and what it does have isn't going to comfortably accommodate a family of that size.

Are you aware this is a multigenerational house that further includes adult siblings?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There's nothing wild about questioning having 6 full bathrooms (2 per floor) in this addition, Mike. It's not typical around here, even for larger mansions.

People living in mansions probably aren't caring for their elderly parents or adult siblings.

I live in a Loudoun suburb with large McMansions. There are some multiple generational homes nearby. Since race is being brought into the conversation, I know at least one family in this situation that is Caucasian and some Asian families.

No one has an issue. The homes were intentionally bought to support the multiple generations. The outside of the homes didn’t change.

This homeowner is trying to change the outside of the home. While the current homeowner says he is trying to use the home for generations of the same family, the next owner could turn it into a group residential facility with the way it is being developed.

A group residential facility allows for no more than 8 mentally ill, intellectually disabled, or developmentally disabled persons. Persons could also be aged, infirm, or disabled. Both types of group homes do have to be licensed by the state.

Maybe even the current homeowners want to create a group residential facility for their mentally ill child/brother that assaulted staffers at Gerry Connolly’s office in 2023? He had pleaded guilty by reason of insanity.

It's a house with bedrooms, so yes, I suppose someone could try to turn it into group home. That's true of any reasonably large home. They're also generally allowed by law. That's a strange thing to fixate on, particularly given that most of us know why this family wants more space right now.

I’m not in the know with “most of us” here. What is the reason this family wants more space right now?

Read the post above that describes the current layout and bedrooms of the home (from someone opposed to the addition, no less) and then think about what that means for a family this size.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

What are you trying to say here? I have no idea what the current layout and bedrooms means for a family of this size. Is there some hidden meaning here?
Please explain.

It's a large family with several adults and a couple kids. The current bedrooms in the house are small and not very functional- e.g., the two upstairs in the original home have sloped ceilings. There's very little common living space, and what it does have isn't going to comfortably accommodate a family of that size.

Are you aware this is a multigenerational house that further includes adult siblings?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the permit site, Courtney has been filling vexatious complaints for months. The staff has probably lost sympathy for her.

You'll get a lot of leeway for your first complaint, but once you get past 3, you better make sure your complaint has merit. Where did she get the idea the house needed a firewall?

And, of course, she repeated the racist tropes that this must really be an apartment. She complained about a second kitchen, apparently not bothering to read closely enough to see the old kitchen is being removed.

Reading her complaints, and noting her writing style, I have no doubt many of the comments here are from Courtney.

The same could be said about what is likely the owner of the property making multiple posts naming her by name and saying disparaging things about her.

I don’t blame her or any other close neighbors for filing as many complaints as they can to try and stop this thing which is clearly being poorly built and is not following the plans that were approved.

This is a weird take. Courtney turned this into a public issue. She posted on the internet before others knew about this, did interviews with the press, and filed public complaints in her name (several with little-to-no merit). The vast majority of the disparaging remarks here have been directed at the homeowner- the scale and magnitude of the remarks directed at Courtney pale in comparison.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

If you're concerned with subjective aesthetics, and want to substitute your judgement for property owners, then you should have bought a home in an HOA. You knew the risk (and reward) when you picked this home. There are plenty of middle class homes with HOAs, and they're always looking for busybodies to serve on design review committees. You'd have a great time.

Well, I’m not sure who you think you are conversing with here, but I already live in a community with an HOA. And we have people who serve on committees who are not busybodies but people who care about their community and are willing to put in volunteer hours on a regular basis to help others. They run a swim team and put on seasonal parties and celebrations for the children in the neighborhood throughout the year. They care about and help other people beyond just their own families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There's nothing wild about questioning having 6 full bathrooms (2 per floor) in this addition, Mike. It's not typical around here, even for larger mansions.

People living in mansions probably aren't caring for their elderly parents or adult siblings.

I live in a Loudoun suburb with large McMansions. There are some multiple generational homes nearby. Since race is being brought into the conversation, I know at least one family in this situation that is Caucasian and some Asian families.

No one has an issue. The homes were intentionally bought to support the multiple generations. The outside of the homes didn’t change.

This homeowner is trying to change the outside of the home. While the current homeowner says he is trying to use the home for generations of the same family, the next owner could turn it into a group residential facility with the way it is being developed.

A group residential facility allows for no more than 8 mentally ill, intellectually disabled, or developmentally disabled persons. Persons could also be aged, infirm, or disabled. Both types of group homes do have to be licensed by the state.

Maybe even the current homeowners want to create a group residential facility for their mentally ill child/brother that assaulted staffers at Gerry Connolly’s office in 2023? He had pleaded guilty by reason of insanity.

It's a house with bedrooms, so yes, I suppose someone could try to turn it into group home. That's true of any reasonably large home. They're also generally allowed by law. That's a strange thing to fixate on, particularly given that most of us know why this family wants more space right now.

I’m not in the know with “most of us” here. What is the reason this family wants more space right now?

Read the post above that describes the current layout and bedrooms of the home (from someone opposed to the addition, no less) and then think about what that means for a family this size.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

What are you trying to say here? I have no idea what the current layout and bedrooms means for a family of this size. Is there some hidden meaning here?
Please explain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There's nothing wild about questioning having 6 full bathrooms (2 per floor) in this addition, Mike. It's not typical around here, even for larger mansions.

People living in mansions probably aren't caring for their elderly parents or adult siblings.

I live in a Loudoun suburb with large McMansions. There are some multiple generational homes nearby. Since race is being brought into the conversation, I know at least one family in this situation that is Caucasian and some Asian families.

No one has an issue. The homes were intentionally bought to support the multiple generations. The outside of the homes didn’t change.

This homeowner is trying to change the outside of the home. While the current homeowner says he is trying to use the home for generations of the same family, the next owner could turn it into a group residential facility with the way it is being developed.

A group residential facility allows for no more than 8 mentally ill, intellectually disabled, or developmentally disabled persons. Persons could also be aged, infirm, or disabled. Both types of group homes do have to be licensed by the state.

Maybe even the current homeowners want to create a group residential facility for their mentally ill child/brother that assaulted staffers at Gerry Connolly’s office in 2023? He had pleaded guilty by reason of insanity.

It's a house with bedrooms, so yes, I suppose someone could try to turn it into group home. That's true of any reasonably large home. They're also generally allowed by law. That's a strange thing to fixate on, particularly given that most of us know why this family wants more space right now.

I’m not in the know with “most of us” here. What is the reason this family wants more space right now?

Read the post above that describes the current layout and bedrooms of the home (from someone opposed to the addition, no less) and then think about what that means for a family this size.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

If you're concerned with subjective aesthetics, and want to substitute your judgement for property owners, then you should have bought a home in an HOA. You knew the risk (and reward) when you picked this home. There are plenty of middle class homes with HOAs, and they're always looking for busybodies to serve on design review committees. You'd have a great time.