Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA approves 46‑foot lot‑width setback variance tied to boundary adjustment; vote recorded as motion and second in transcript
Summary
The BZA considered a request to reduce the minimum lot‑width‑at‑setback requirement from 300 feet to roughly 254.6 feet after a boundary line adjustment created a nonconforming condition; a motion was made, seconded and the board indicated approval in the transcript excerpt.
Fluvanna County’s Board of Zoning Appeals considered BZA 25‑02, a request for a 46‑foot variance to Fluvanna County Code section 22‑4‑3(d) to reduce the minimum lot width measured at the required setback from 300 feet to 254 (approximately 254.56) feet for an 8.814‑acre parcel (Tax Map 17, Section 7, Parcel 3).
Planning staff explained the variance stems from an earlier boundary line adjustment that altered the parcel shape and created a narrow “boot” or triangular area. That adjustment placed an adjacent house closer to the new property line so the house no longer meets the 50‑foot side‑yard setback and the lot width measured at the building setback no longer meets the 300‑foot requirement. Staff said the triangular “boot” does not provide buildable area and that a private road’s approved 100‑foot setback further removes building potential in that portion.
An agent identified himself as Brian Jacobson and provided measured survey figures, saying on the record that “that is a total length at the building set at the new building setback for that whole triangle piece of 254.56.” Staff told the board the nonconforming condition was created when the planning department previously approved the boundary line adjustment and that the requested variance is the means to resolve the setback/width conflict.
A board member moved to approve BZA 25‑02 and another member seconded; the chair called for approval and the record in the transcript indicates the motion was seconded and presented for approval. The transcript does not contain an itemized roll‑call tally of yes/no votes but shows the motion was seconded and processed by the board during the meeting.
The board’s action relieves the lot‑width‑at‑setback standard for the affected parcel so the adjacent house conforms relative to the new property line; the variance resolves the immediate nonconforming condition created by the prior boundary adjustment.
