Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a quote from the denial letter of what the homeowner thought:

Although the addition is unfinished, you explain in your request that the finished wall will be done in "standard vinyl siding — approximately one inch in thickness," resulting in a final right side yard setback that “will be around 7.3 feet."

Vinyl siding isn't that thick, typically a projection of 3/4”. I suppose the corner trim could project 1". Again, someone should have submitted a drawing.

There’s insulation under the siding, which adds some more thickness. I suppose one could cheap out on the insulation to save bulk, but then you’d be paying extra on heat and air conditioning every month.

Insulation? What's that?

Haha, right- they’re doing this as cheaply as possible. Who needs insulation?

How many homes in that neighborhood have foam boards under their siding? Almost none I bet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a quote from the denial letter of what the homeowner thought:

Although the addition is unfinished, you explain in your request that the finished wall will be done in "standard vinyl siding — approximately one inch in thickness," resulting in a final right side yard setback that “will be around 7.3 feet."

Vinyl siding isn't that thick, typically a projection of 3/4”. I suppose the corner trim could project 1". Again, someone should have submitted a drawing.

There’s insulation under the siding, which adds some more thickness. I suppose one could cheap out on the insulation to save bulk, but then you’d be paying extra on heat and air conditioning every month.

Insulation? What's that?

Haha, right- they’re doing this as cheaply as possible. Who needs insulation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a quote from the denial letter of what the homeowner thought:

Although the addition is unfinished, you explain in your request that the finished wall will be done in "standard vinyl siding — approximately one inch in thickness," resulting in a final right side yard setback that “will be around 7.3 feet."

Vinyl siding isn't that thick, typically a projection of 3/4”. I suppose the corner trim could project 1". Again, someone should have submitted a drawing.

There’s insulation under the siding, which adds some more thickness. I suppose one could cheap out on the insulation to save bulk, but then you’d be paying extra on heat and air conditioning every month.

Insulation? What's that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a quote from the denial letter of what the homeowner thought:

Although the addition is unfinished, you explain in your request that the finished wall will be done in "standard vinyl siding — approximately one inch in thickness," resulting in a final right side yard setback that “will be around 7.3 feet."

Vinyl siding isn't that thick, typically a projection of 3/4”. I suppose the corner trim could project 1". Again, someone should have submitted a drawing.

Vinyl siding has around 3/" to 1" of foam board under it if installed correctly, so it will be much more than an inch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a quote from the denial letter of what the homeowner thought:

Although the addition is unfinished, you explain in your request that the finished wall will be done in "standard vinyl siding — approximately one inch in thickness," resulting in a final right side yard setback that “will be around 7.3 feet."

Vinyl siding isn't that thick, typically a projection of 3/4”. I suppose the corner trim could project 1". Again, someone should have submitted a drawing.

There’s insulation under the siding, which adds some more thickness. I suppose one could cheap out on the insulation to save bulk, but then you’d be paying extra on heat and air conditioning every month.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a quote from the denial letter of what the homeowner thought:

Although the addition is unfinished, you explain in your request that the finished wall will be done in "standard vinyl siding — approximately one inch in thickness," resulting in a final right side yard setback that “will be around 7.3 feet."

Vinyl siding isn't that thick, typically a projection of 3/4”. I suppose the corner trim could project 1". Again, someone should have submitted a drawing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a quote from the denial letter of what the homeowner thought:

Although the addition is unfinished, you explain in your request that the finished wall will be done in "standard vinyl siding — approximately one inch in thickness," resulting in a final right side yard setback that “will be around 7.3 feet."

Vinyl siding isn't that thick, typically a projection of 3/4”. I suppose the corner trim could project 1". Again, someone should have submitted a drawing.

Anonymous wrote:This is a quote from the denial letter of what the homeowner thought:

Although the addition is unfinished, you explain in your request that the finished wall will be done in "standard vinyl siding — approximately one inch in thickness," resulting in a final right side yard setback that “will be around 7.3 feet."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally the height of the structure is not an issue. The issue is the structure (including its height) is too close to the property line.

The utilization and enjoyment of the neighbors was always an issue, even when it was being built to code. So to answer your question, does 7 inches really impact the neighbors enjoyment. The answer is absolutely yes.

That’s why the BOS looked into it and is reviewing building ordinances as a whole to make sure this type of project doesn’t happen again. However, legally the county could not use the neighbors enjoyment and utilization as a reason to deny the project. Under a variation the neighbors and community become part of the considerations for approval.

If the 7 extra inches of width really impacts the neighbors' enjoyment, the opinion doesn't state that anywhere. To the contrary, the opinion expressly states that they were considering the structure as a whole, not just the variance. This is why the opinion is vulnerable.

The negative impact to the neighbor is addressed in the letter. This is the quote from the letter…


“in particular, the property to the northwest closest to the right side yard in question is negatively impacted
due to the looming nature and "wall effect" created by an addition of this height and bulk; that impact is further
aggravated given the addition's failure to meet the proposed setback of 8.5 feet.”

Please link to the denial letter. I read what PP quoted, and it does not address the impact of the setback variance requested.

Assuming what you say is true, then the opinion is stronger given that they actually addressed that. The bare conclusion is dubious though. The "wall effect" exists either either way, and there is no explanation as to how the "wall effect" is exacerbated by a 7-inch change in the width of a structure, nor why the "wall effect" impacts the neighbor's enjoyment in a legally cognizable way, given OP's entitlement to build a three-story structure as a matter of right.

The OPs “entitlement” to build the structure that tall ended when he crossed over the setback allowances. And he’s still entitled to build a 3 story structure as a matter of right (at least for now) within the setback allowances.

Once he crossed over the setback allowances, there is more scrutiny and others property rights are now considered in addition to the homeowners.

The County has determined as the letter stated “ the Zoning Administrator is unable to determine that the addition as currently designed is not detrimental to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity.”

And the Zoning Administrator must determine if setback variance “will not be detrimental to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity”. This is one of the qualifying considerations of the zoning ordinances. The Zoning Administrator has to make an assessment on the impact to the neighbors.

I'm not sure this is the appropriate standard of review, particularly since the requested variance is within the 10% buffer zone in which variances are routinely granted.

By approximately 1.2". Given the builder's forthrightness in previous transactions, I believe the BZA is not confident in his approximation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't these regularly go to the BZA itself rather than handled by staff?

That being said, I fully expect the homeowner will need to appeal the ultimate BZA decision to circuit court. And there county set themselves up to lose with Pat Herrity's earlier comments.

Herrity's comments would be irrelevant. You would need to prove he influenced the BZA. The BZA has clearly laid out the factors it is allowed to consider when approving a variance or special exception. It's in the civil code for the county. It's not a matter of opinion.

The law is not always as cut and dried as people might think. Laws and regulations are typically open to some amount of interpretation: different people might read them differently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't these regularly go to the BZA itself rather than handled by staff?

That being said, I fully expect the homeowner will need to appeal the ultimate BZA decision to circuit court. And there county set themselves up to lose with Pat Herrity's earlier comments.

Herrity's comments would be irrelevant. You would need to prove he influenced the BZA. The BZA has clearly laid out the factors it is allowed to consider when approving a variance or special exception. It's in the civil code for the county. It's not a matter of opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally the height of the structure is not an issue. The issue is the structure (including its height) is too close to the property line.

The utilization and enjoyment of the neighbors was always an issue, even when it was being built to code. So to answer your question, does 7 inches really impact the neighbors enjoyment. The answer is absolutely yes.

That’s why the BOS looked into it and is reviewing building ordinances as a whole to make sure this type of project doesn’t happen again. However, legally the county could not use the neighbors enjoyment and utilization as a reason to deny the project. Under a variation the neighbors and community become part of the considerations for approval.

If the 7 extra inches of width really impacts the neighbors' enjoyment, the opinion doesn't state that anywhere. To the contrary, the opinion expressly states that they were considering the structure as a whole, not just the variance. This is why the opinion is vulnerable.

The negative impact to the neighbor is addressed in the letter. This is the quote from the letter…


“in particular, the property to the northwest closest to the right side yard in question is negatively impacted
due to the looming nature and "wall effect" created by an addition of this height and bulk; that impact is further
aggravated given the addition's failure to meet the proposed setback of 8.5 feet.”

Please link to the denial letter. I read what PP quoted, and it does not address the impact of the setback variance requested.

Assuming what you say is true, then the opinion is stronger given that they actually addressed that. The bare conclusion is dubious though. The "wall effect" exists either either way, and there is no explanation as to how the "wall effect" is exacerbated by a 7-inch change in the width of a structure, nor why the "wall effect" impacts the neighbor's enjoyment in a legally cognizable way, given OP's entitlement to build a three-story structure as a matter of right.

The OPs “entitlement” to build the structure that tall ended when he crossed over the setback allowances. And he’s still entitled to build a 3 story structure as a matter of right (at least for now) within the setback allowances.

Once he crossed over the setback allowances, there is more scrutiny and others property rights are now considered in addition to the homeowners.

The County has determined as the letter stated “ the Zoning Administrator is unable to determine that the addition as currently designed is not detrimental to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity.”

And the Zoning Administrator must determine if setback variance “will not be detrimental to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity”. This is one of the qualifying considerations of the zoning ordinances. The Zoning Administrator has to make an assessment on the impact to the neighbors.

I'm not sure this is the appropriate standard of review, particularly since the requested variance is within the 10% buffer zone in which variances are routinely granted.

By approximately 1.2". Given the builder's forthrightness in previous transactions, I believe the BZA is not confident in his approximation.

Yes, I think it is too close for them to be comfortable that it truly is within that 10% margin.

The builder should have sought some advice from an expert, like a lawyer, that, no doubt, would have suggested a detailed drawing including finishes and not an approximation. But a penny saved, is a penny earned. /s

Anonymous wrote:Don't these regularly go to the BZA itself rather than handled by staff?

That being said, I fully expect the homeowner will need to appeal the ultimate BZA decision to circuit court. And there county set themselves up to lose with Pat Herrity's earlier comments.