Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

And then she said that it would be less looming had it been built on the correct setback and that she supports change to the zoning laws.

The fact that the next door neighbor finds it uncomfortable to have a 30 foot high and 60 some foot long building very close to her property line is not terribly surprising. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment?

It illustrates that this issue never had anything to do with the minuscule setback violation. It was always about how she hated how the addition looked. She then weaponized her influence and connections to find violations that otherwise never would have been discovered to get the project shutdown. And she did that because she did not personally like completely lawful architectural design.

Are you saying that it would have been better to have never discovered the code violations? That could have ended up worse for the family living in a poorly constructed building.

Whether or not anyone liked the design has nothing to do with the fact that there were numerous problems and discrepancies with the project.

For whatever reason the homeowners wanted to build as big and as cheaply as possible. Inattention to detail, sloppy construction practices, and contracting with a company without a license were some of the causes of the issues with the building that were likely a result of trying to spend the very least amount possible. Unfortunately, this is a good illustration of what happens when someone is penny wise and pound foolish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

And then she said that it would be less looming had it been built on the correct setback and that she supports change to the zoning laws.

The fact that the next door neighbor finds it uncomfortable to have a 30 foot high and 60 some foot long building very close to her property line is not terribly surprising. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment?

It illustrates that this issue never had anything to do with the minuscule setback violation. It was always about how she hated how the addition looked. She then weaponized her influence and connections to find violations that otherwise never would have been discovered to get the project shutdown. And she did that because she did not personally like completely lawful architectural design.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

And then she said that it would be less looming had it been built on the correct setback and that she supports change to the zoning laws.

The fact that the next door neighbor finds it uncomfortable to have a 30 foot high and 60 some foot long building very close to her property line is not terribly surprising. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

I like how you ignored her [your?] direct response, "It wouldn't be different." Interesting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

I notice you did not include the entire quote and cut it off before she finished answering the question.

Interesting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

BZA: "If it was built in the right location how would [the looming, the shadows] be different?"

Courtney: "It wouldn't be different. And that's one of the main concerns here."

I re-watched it. Any dispute??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

She said that if it were built to the correct setback it would not be as looming, but she still supports changing the zoning laws.

Link to the video recoding is here:

https://video.fairfaxcounty.gov/player/clip/4133

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

Do you have a recording? I watched live.

It’s on the Fairfax County website. Possibly on the same page where you watched it live or there might be a link from that page.

Want to post a link, or nah? All I see is the livestream.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

Do you have a recording? I watched live.

It’s on the Fairfax County website. Possibly on the same page where you watched it live or there might be a link from that page.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

Do you have a recording? I watched live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The objection you mean?
Also the fact that the HO did various other things on the property without permits, such as transitioning the garage. Also the HO is planning to rent out units.

Best thing he can do at this point is to sell his house and go open up a real boarding house unit someplace that is zoned for that.

Nah, the best thing he can do is build a spite house, which Americans have been doing since 1776.

Sure he could do that. And he will be cutting off his nose to spite his face if he does.

He will be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to tank the value of his own property.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.

Go back and listen again.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The objection you mean?
Also the fact that the HO did various other things on the property without permits, such as transitioning the garage. Also the HO is planning to rent out units.

Best thing he can do at this point is to sell his house and go open up a real boarding house unit someplace that is zoned for that.

Nah, the best thing he can do is build a spite house, which Americans have been doing since 1776.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, she said it would be better if it were built the eight inches back. Listen to the video.

I watched the hearing. The BZA member asked her if correcting the violations would solve her problem, and she said no and that’s why she is so disappointed in Fairfax County and why the laws should be changed.