Madison County Board of Zoning Appeals grants setback variance to allow two‑lot subdivision

The Madison County Board of Zoning Appeals voted to grant a variance allowing a reduction of the required setback from 50 feet to 32 feet for V-41525, an application filed by David Mickelson on behalf of Sarah Dan LLC, so the owner can create a two‑lot subdivision (date not specified).

The variance affects a 6.291‑acre parcel identified in county records; the applicant said the reduced setback would preserve an access route for the proposed subdivision while avoiding creation of a nonconforming lot. Board members moved and seconded the motion to grant the variance and approved it by voice vote; a roll‑call tally was not recorded in the meeting minutes.

The request centers on access and utility placement rather than the single‑family use of the lots, county staff told the board. Alan (county planning staff) said the proposal is “essentially a by‑right subdivision” except for the requested variance and noted health‑department comments arrived the afternoon of the meeting. He told members the existing septic system lies in the area proposed for the right‑of‑way and the applicant will need to relocate the drain field and obtain approval from the health department before a subdivision can be finalized.

Applicant David Mickelson told the board he originally sought to secure an easement from an adjoining property owner so a shared driveway would avoid any variance request, but the neighbor declined. Mickelson said he has retained a soils engineer and is prepared to move the drain field if the board approves the variance. He also said the 32‑foot measurement is taken from a carport corner and that removing the carport would reduce the encroachment.

Neighbor William Hunt, who owns the farm on the adjacent Lot 5060 B, spoke in opposition to the plan as presented. Hunt said the neighbor objector, Ada Patterson, is concerned about a row of Leland cypress trees that she fears would be damaged or removed if access is built behind her property. Hunt also raised concerns about increased traffic near his horse pasture and potential impacts on animals.

Alan told the board that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) typically does not comment on variances unless work occurs inside its right‑of‑way, but he cautioned that creation of an additional parcel could trigger VDOT requirements for entrance modifications. Staff also noted that two different surveys were on file: one provided by the applicant and one submitted by an adjoining property owner illustrating drainage at the rear of the lot.

Board members discussed alternatives including a special‑use approach that would create a duplex on the existing building and a differently configured lot, but the applicant said that option would create a nonconforming lot. After discussion the board granted the variance. The applicant will need to address the health‑department requirements and any VDOT entrance conditions during subsequent administrative subdivision review.

The board’s action was limited to the setback variance; no tree permit decisions or changes to the shared private road maintenance were made by the board at this meeting. The board record indicates that further technical approvals (septic relocation, any required entrance modifications) must be secured before the subdivision can proceed.

Votes at a glance: The board granted the variance for V‑41525 (David Mickelson, Sarah Dan LLC) by voice vote after a motion and second; a numeric roll‑call was not recorded in the meeting transcript.