Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Because the injection was always to the height and style, not to the structural integrity. As Courtney admitted at the hearing, the owner curing all of the violations would not actually address any of her concerns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

"He did his best!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Because the injection was always to the height and style, not to the structural integrity. As Courtney admitted at the hearing, the owner curing all of the violations would not actually address any of her concerns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

The fact that you don’t see a problem with this poorly constructed structure that violates various zoning laws and doesn’t even follow the plans as submitted an approved is more of a concern.

Property rights are important but not more important than the building codes that are in place to ensure safety.

Anonymous wrote:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

Anonymous wrote:America truly hates property rights. Sad this got denied

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yay zoning variance request denied. Tear it down!

Tear it down and build it 8 inches narrower.

Would not be allowed because Fairfax county has already changed the zoning ordinance to prevent this from happening again. His property would not be grandfathered into the prior rules because it he did not even follow existing zoning rules at the time when he built it in the first place. If he had built it 8 inches narrower and had to tear it down for some reason he likely would be allowed to rebuild the prior structure.

What change? I have heard that the height or setback rules have changed? The structural design is compliant with the exception of the setback issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yay zoning variance request denied. Tear it down!

Tear it down and build it 8 inches narrower.

Would not be allowed because Fairfax county has already changed the zoning ordinance to prevent this from happening again. His property would not be grandfathered into the prior rules because it he did not even follow existing zoning rules at the time when he built it in the first place. If he had built it 8 inches narrower and had to tear it down for some reason he likely would be allowed to rebuild the prior structure.

What change? I have heard that the height or setback rules have changed? The structural design is compliant with the exception of the setback issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yay zoning variance request denied. Tear it down!

Tear it down and build it 8 inches narrower.

Would not be allowed because Fairfax county has already changed the zoning ordinance to prevent this from happening again. His property would not be grandfathered into the prior rules because it he did not even follow existing zoning rules at the time when he built it in the first place. If he had built it 8 inches narrower and had to tear it down for some reason he likely would be allowed to rebuild the prior structure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that’s super interesting about this hearing is that it turns out the homeowner actually did use a contractor who misrepresented himself as licensed but previously had his licensed taken away for telling people they had to put down owner as contractor and pull their own permits. That’s a huge mitigating factor for the homeowner.

The HO is shady. If he thought he was using a legit contractor, he should never signed the permitting paperwork with that he was contractor. He certified that he was the contractor in all the permitting paperwork. Not buying is naive persona

Not everyone has the same sophistication or experience as you. It takes most of us learning our lesson the hard way to start checking things like that.

So this is a great chance for the homeowner to learn the hard way— a complete rebuild. Then he will learn.

I can’t imagine signing a contract with a GC whom I hadn’t googled so I could check out online info. Also, did they not even ask the GC for names of former clients they could talk to?

This was a $200,000 project they were committing to and it didn’t occur to them to check out the previous work and background of the GC. Unbelievable!

You know this doesn’t come up when you search Google, right? Not unless there happens to be a news article on the person. You have to go into Fairfax County’s DPOR portal and search for licensure. I only know this because I got burned before as a first time homeowner.

Not true. I googled the name and the company name and a violation and loss of license came up from May of 2023.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yay zoning variance request denied. Tear it down!

Tear it down and build it 8 inches narrower.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that’s super interesting about this hearing is that it turns out the homeowner actually did use a contractor who misrepresented himself as licensed but previously had his licensed taken away for telling people they had to put down owner as contractor and pull their own permits. That’s a huge mitigating factor for the homeowner.

The HO is shady. If he thought he was using a legit contractor, he should never signed the permitting paperwork with that he was contractor. He certified that he was the contractor in all the permitting paperwork. Not buying is naive persona

Not everyone has the same sophistication or experience as you. It takes most of us learning our lesson the hard way to start checking things like that.

So this is a great chance for the homeowner to learn the hard way— a complete rebuild. Then he will learn.

I can’t imagine signing a contract with a GC whom I hadn’t googled so I could check out online info. Also, did they not even ask the GC for names of former clients they could talk to?

This was a $200,000 project they were committing to and it didn’t occur to them to check out the previous work and background of the GC. Unbelievable!

You know this doesn’t come up when you search Google, right? Not unless there happens to be a news article on the person. You have to go into Fairfax County’s DPOR portal and search for licensure. I only know this because I got burned before as a first time homeowner.

Anonymous wrote:Yay zoning variance request denied. Tear it down!