Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Lots of middle class people rent. You’re not forced to buy a home, and it’s generally not a great investment!

Regarding lack of care, sure, I wouldn’t have approached it that way. And that would annoy me, but that’s as far as it goes. Annoyance.

The neighbors would obviously prefer that the owner spend tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the addition look more attractive to them. But they’re not offering to pony up the difference, I suspect.

Actually, the neighbors would probably prefer that the family not build this odd looking addition that doesn’t fit into the look of the rest of the neighborhood. Why would you think the neighbors should offer money to this family when this family is taking actions that will take thousands away from their neighbors? Is that what they’re thinking- that the neighbors should pony up money for them to build a better addition? That’s a bit beyond a rational plan, you must know.

This family is thinking of themselves and what they want- they don’t appear to be giving a thought to the good of their community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How long til the county makes a decision on the variance? And what happened to the argument that bc he poured a new foundation that the setback changed so he would still be out of compliance

There was a news clip last night saying he had a meeting last night with the county, and has to get a new survey of the property. Depending on the results he can either proceed or apply for a variance. Applying for a variance can take several months and it sounds like the immediate neighbors can choose whether or not to sign it.

https://wjla.com/news/local/fairfax-county-marble-lane-construction-three-story-media-county-leaders-survey-propery-zoning-land-development-impact-herrity-neighborhood-greenbriar-chantilly-culture-parents-restrictions

So if he gets a laser survey and metal property point makers plus ground paint stakes strings...Who's doing the survey?
Google maps has historical imagery. The addition appears to be wider than the 1 car garage converted to a room. It also extends into the driveway so that could be a front yard setback issue.

How did this get so far with a new foundation, framing, plywood on a 3 story addition with no stop from the county? Knew of FX County situation where someone 's contractor digging foundation - visual too close-county came , measured, stop work.

Found a great house zoned for Rocky Run /Chantilly- similar to the original of this. Added front dormers and a uitlity room behind garage with master suite above garage- great rooflines and lovely home.

We had a house in our ffx county neighborhood thay build a besutiful wooden shed in their backyard. They had to pull it down because it was a couple inches bigger than ffx code.

How did this monstrosity pass the framing inspection?

Why do you think it shouldn't pass inspection?

In photos, some of
the plywood boards on the outside don’t appear to be lined up with each other in a secure way. If that very obvious thing isn’t right, what else might be done in a sloppy way that is hidden?

That's almost certainly because they got a stop work order in the middle of construction. It looks like they intended to come back around with a hand saw. An odd choice, but there's nothing wrong with doing it that way.

I have a relative who has been a contractor for almost twenty years. He says that is definitely a sign of poor quality workmanship. And points to the possibility of more problems with the building quality.

It does make you wonder how this will hold up over the years if it ends up being approved.

I would agree if they were done with framing, but they clearly weren't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How long til the county makes a decision on the variance? And what happened to the argument that bc he poured a new foundation that the setback changed so he would still be out of compliance

There was a news clip last night saying he had a meeting last night with the county, and has to get a new survey of the property. Depending on the results he can either proceed or apply for a variance. Applying for a variance can take several months and it sounds like the immediate neighbors can choose whether or not to sign it.

https://wjla.com/news/local/fairfax-county-marble-lane-construction-three-story-media-county-leaders-survey-propery-zoning-land-development-impact-herrity-neighborhood-greenbriar-chantilly-culture-parents-restrictions

So if he gets a laser survey and metal property point makers plus ground paint stakes strings...Who's doing the survey?
Google maps has historical imagery. The addition appears to be wider than the 1 car garage converted to a room. It also extends into the driveway so that could be a front yard setback issue.

How did this get so far with a new foundation, framing, plywood on a 3 story addition with no stop from the county? Knew of FX County situation where someone 's contractor digging foundation - visual too close-county came , measured, stop work.

Found a great house zoned for Rocky Run /Chantilly- similar to the original of this. Added front dormers and a uitlity room behind garage with master suite above garage- great rooflines and lovely home.

We had a house in our ffx county neighborhood thay build a besutiful wooden shed in their backyard. They had to pull it down because it was a couple inches bigger than ffx code.

How did this monstrosity pass the framing inspection?

Why do you think it shouldn't pass inspection?

In photos, some of
the plywood boards on the outside don’t appear to be lined up with each other in a secure way. If that very obvious thing isn’t right, what else might be done in a sloppy way that is hidden?

That's almost certainly because they got a stop work order in the middle of construction. It looks like they intended to come back around with a hand saw. An odd choice, but there's nothing wrong with doing it that way.

I have a relative who has been a contractor for almost twenty years. He says that is definitely a sign of poor quality workmanship. And points to the possibility of more problems with the building quality.

It does make you wonder how this will hold up over the years if it ends up being approved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Lots of middle class people rent. You’re not forced to buy a home, and it’s generally not a great investment!

Regarding lack of care, sure, I wouldn’t have approached it that way. And that would annoy me, but that’s as far as it goes. Annoyance.

The neighbors would obviously prefer that the owner spend tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the addition look more attractive to them. But they’re not offering to pony up the difference, I suspect.

That seems like the obvious solution here. If you think this addition is going to knock 25% off the value of your $800k home, then meet in the middle. You and your neighbors can each give $100k.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Lots of middle class people rent. You’re not forced to buy a home, and it’s generally not a great investment!

Regarding lack of care, sure, I wouldn’t have approached it that way. And that would annoy me, but that’s as far as it goes. Annoyance.

The neighbors would obviously prefer that the owner spend tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the addition look more attractive to them. But they’re not offering to pony up the difference, I suspect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How long til the county makes a decision on the variance? And what happened to the argument that bc he poured a new foundation that the setback changed so he would still be out of compliance

There was a news clip last night saying he had a meeting last night with the county, and has to get a new survey of the property. Depending on the results he can either proceed or apply for a variance. Applying for a variance can take several months and it sounds like the immediate neighbors can choose whether or not to sign it.

https://wjla.com/news/local/fairfax-county-marble-lane-construction-three-story-media-county-leaders-survey-propery-zoning-land-development-impact-herrity-neighborhood-greenbriar-chantilly-culture-parents-restrictions

So if he gets a laser survey and metal property point makers plus ground paint stakes strings...Who's doing the survey?
Google maps has historical imagery. The addition appears to be wider than the 1 car garage converted to a room. It also extends into the driveway so that could be a front yard setback issue.

How did this get so far with a new foundation, framing, plywood on a 3 story addition with no stop from the county? Knew of FX County situation where someone 's contractor digging foundation - visual too close-county came , measured, stop work.

Found a great house zoned for Rocky Run /Chantilly- similar to the original of this. Added front dormers and a uitlity room behind garage with master suite above garage- great rooflines and lovely home.

We had a house in our ffx county neighborhood thay build a besutiful wooden shed in their backyard. They had to pull it down because it was a couple inches bigger than ffx code.

How did this monstrosity pass the framing inspection?

Why do you think it shouldn't pass inspection?

In photos, some of
the plywood boards on the outside don’t appear to be lined up with each other in a secure way. If that very obvious thing isn’t right, what else might be done in a sloppy way that is hidden?

That's almost certainly because they got a stop work order in the middle of construction. It looks like they intended to come back around with a hand saw. An odd choice, but there's nothing wrong with doing it that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How long til the county makes a decision on the variance? And what happened to the argument that bc he poured a new foundation that the setback changed so he would still be out of compliance

There was a news clip last night saying he had a meeting last night with the county, and has to get a new survey of the property. Depending on the results he can either proceed or apply for a variance. Applying for a variance can take several months and it sounds like the immediate neighbors can choose whether or not to sign it.

https://wjla.com/news/local/fairfax-county-marble-lane-construction-three-story-media-county-leaders-survey-propery-zoning-land-development-impact-herrity-neighborhood-greenbriar-chantilly-culture-parents-restrictions

So if he gets a laser survey and metal property point makers plus ground paint stakes strings...Who's doing the survey?
Google maps has historical imagery. The addition appears to be wider than the 1 car garage converted to a room. It also extends into the driveway so that could be a front yard setback issue.

How did this get so far with a new foundation, framing, plywood on a 3 story addition with no stop from the county? Knew of FX County situation where someone 's contractor digging foundation - visual too close-county came , measured, stop work.

Found a great house zoned for Rocky Run /Chantilly- similar to the original of this. Added front dormers and a uitlity room behind garage with master suite above garage- great rooflines and lovely home.

We had a house in our ffx county neighborhood thay build a besutiful wooden shed in their backyard. They had to pull it down because it was a couple inches bigger than ffx code.

How did this monstrosity pass the framing inspection?

Why do you think it shouldn't pass inspection?

Are you the owner? Why do you keep acting like it isn’t the myriad of construction and other violations that it clearly is. That construction work alone cannot have passed inspections.

Such as? I know about the 6 inches, but what are all these other issues you're referring to?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it IS an investment. I still don’t believe that family is moving in.

I can’t prove it at the moment, but the whole thing is shady. The math isn’t mathing and all that. If it moves forward I want to bookmark this to see if I am right in my suspicions.

I'm pretty sure they've been living there through the construction. That's probably part of the reason the addition was designed that way.

I don't understand why you think the "math isn't mathing." If the main goal was more space for the family at the lowest cost, this seems like a pretty natural design.

Yes, the very definition of penny wise and pound foolish. It just looks like greed to have more space but not paying for it.

Housing is a basic need. Maximizing the return from a future sale of a house is not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

This is sadly correct.
There is no way I would purchase any home in that neighborhood now.

To be fair, it is a large neighborhood and this is just one home of thousands. There are 2 elementary schools within our neighborhood. There is a stream park in the middle of it. All 3 school levels are easily accessible (our house is walkable to the MS and HS, too), as is a big shopping center with all the essentials and a public library. The neighbors are friendly 99% of the time. We really like it here and would have a hard time leaving - we feel spoiled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

This is sadly correct.
There is no way I would purchase any home in that neighborhood now.

There are lots of other buyers out there.

Sure, but the only ones interested will want a rock bottom price. A bad outcome for all involved at the end of the day.

Exactly which then turns into a decline in value for the entire neighborhood but PP doesn’t care because they’re all about “property rights” and have no concern for their neighbors or neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

Anonymous wrote:4 adults 2 kids. You are allowed to have family members live with you. What if the other set of in-laws want to live there also? Aunts and uncles. It’s their house. They can have whomever they want living with the. There are many multigenerational homes now.

I do agree that it is way ugly. And the architect sucks.

That is true in NOVA not everywhere. My second home is in an incorporated town with Strict zoning laws all geared at Blocking Grouper Homes. It defines family as owner(s) of house plus their kids. Uncles/Aunts/Siblings/Inlaws/My Parents just cant move in. It is single family housing only.

If I wanted their is a application to allow a parent to live with you if approved. But no second kitchen, no locked doors, no bedrooms in basement. And approval is annual. Neighbors can complain at zoning hearing. Yes you need to go in person to get zoning approval.

Each house only gets a parking pass one car on street. Only official residents of house can get a parks pass. Also strict rules on parties. You need permits for street parking. And only a set amount per year. And strict rules on noise. For instance no home repair with power tools on weekends, no lawnmowing with a power mower on weekends in summer.

You buy in an incorporated town you should abide by the rules. I rented my house out in that town and as such it is illegal for me to park in that town, or go to a park in that town even though I own. Single family means single family.

I once was going to rent it in summer as buy beach and a lady shows up to apply. I tell her single family only. She goes well it will be me and my sister, my Mom to rent for summer for beach. Her jaw fell when I said it is SINGLE FAMILY. Your sister and Mom are not your family they wont be allowed on beach or to park car. That would be a grouper house not allowed under town rules. She moved on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it IS an investment. I still don’t believe that family is moving in.

I can’t prove it at the moment, but the whole thing is shady. The math isn’t mathing and all that. If it moves forward I want to bookmark this to see if I am right in my suspicions.

I'm pretty sure they've been living there through the construction. That's probably part of the reason the addition was designed that way.

I don't understand why you think the "math isn't mathing." If the main goal was more space for the family at the lowest cost, this seems like a pretty natural design.

Yes, the very definition of penny wise and pound foolish. It just looks like greed to have more space but not paying for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.