Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Goochland BZA approves variance for front-yard setback at County Line Road

3411335 · May 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Goochland County Board of Zoning Appeals on May 19 approved a variance allowing homeowners Eric and Pamela Thompson to retain a covered porch that extends into the A-1 district's 75-foot front-yard setback at 3951 County Line Road after a public hearing and staff presentations.

The Goochland County Board of Zoning Appeals on May 19 approved a variance allowing Eric Eugene Thompson and Pamela Lee Thompson to keep a covered porch that encroaches on the 75-foot front-yard setback at 3951 County Line Road.

The request, filed as VAR-2020-51, sought relief from Goochland County Code section 15-493 and referenced state variance standards in Virginia Code § 15.2-2309. County staff said the covered porch is approximately 200 square feet and that their review showed the applicant sought a 3.7-foot variance from the 75-foot principal-structure setback required in the Agricultural General (A-1) zoning district.

Jamie Sherry, director of Community Development, outlined the property and request and told the board the parcel is a 2.72-acre A-1 lot at tax map number 51030, listed in county materials as 3951 County Line Road and designated in the comprehensive plan as a Rural Enhancement Area. "The request is for a 3.7 foot variance to the 75 foot principal structure front yard setback requirement," Sherry said.

County representative Kelly Kemp, who noted she was not the county attorney, told the board the applicants had not met the legal tests required to grant a variance. "They don't meet their burden for you all to grant the variance," Kemp said, explaining the code requires both that a strict application of the ordinance unreasonably restrict use or impose a hardship and that several other findings be met.

Eric Eugene Thompson, the applicant and property owner, said the porch was built after a deteriorating stoop broke and that the work began without the applicant's knowledge that a permit or setback review was required. "We wouldn't have did it if we knew it was a problem," Thompson said, describing concerns for family safety and asking the board to allow the finished porch to remain.

During the public hearing several neighbors submitted letters in support; Dawn Cornell, a nearby resident, read two letters from adjacent property owners saying they had no objection and that the porch improved neighborhood appearance. Jonathan Lyle, a member of the Goochland County Board of Supervisors speaking as a private citizen, urged the board to grant the variance, saying the Thompsons are long-time residents and the change would be "beneficial to all concerned."

Board members debated the legal standards and the equities. Member Babbitt opposed the variance, saying the board must apply the ordinance consistently: "While they're great people, they're not always gonna live there... when making land use decisions . . . I guess I just don't see that the variance makes sense to fix this problem," he said. Other members cited the safety concern, neighborhood support, and the relatively small encroachment as reasons to approve.

Chair moved to approve the variance; the motion was seconded by Member Lacey. The clerk recorded the vote by roll call; the recorded votes were in favor from the chair, Mr. McDonald, Ms. Cook, Mr. Cosby and Mr. Lacey, and opposed by Mr. Babbitt. The board approved the variance; the clerk announced the motion as passing.

If the variance had not been granted, county staff said the Thompsons likely would have had to remove the structure or pursue a rezoning process. Staff also noted that the stop-work order was issued after building inspections observed the work and that a survey was required as part of the permit process.

Board members and staff used the hearing to flag broader process issues: several BZA members and staff urged the county to review ordinance and permitting timelines so similar homeowner projects do not remain unresolved for months. Thompson told the board the porch had been unfinished since October and that the delay had left the family waiting for a final resolution.

The board's action allows the Thompsons to complete the covered porch without removal, subject to any outstanding building-permit or inspection requirements.