Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leesburg resident asks planning commission to consider variance for screened porch setback
Summary
A Leesburg homeowner urged the Planning Commission to consider a variance from a 30-foot setback requirement for a screened-in porch on a perimeter lot adjacent to Loudoun County property; staff advised the applicant to meet with Community Development and explained the variance process goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
A Leesburg homeowner asked the Planning Commission on Sept. 4 for guidance after receiving inconsistent information about whether she can add a screened-in porch to an existing deck on a perimeter lot.
“My name is Amy Sibley…we are asking that this buffering, both the landscape and natural, be considered to reduce our required backyard to the standard 20 feet like all non perimeter lots,” Amy Sibley said, summarizing the justification in images she provided to the commission.
Sibley told commissioners that her property’s rear fence line is the Leesburg municipal boundary, with Loudoun County land and a government office campus across that line. She said the adjacent parcel is buffered by landscape and a large wooded area and that the proposed porch addition would sit roughly 2 feet farther from the property line than the existing deck.
Commissioners and staff described the administrative path for the request. James David, Director, Department of Community Development, said the commission does not have authority to grant variances to setbacks. He recommended Sibley gather relevant documents — plats, the cited zoning rule, and photographs — and make an appointment with Community Development on Catoctin Street so staff can evaluate the technical record.
“If that is the issue, there's no authority on the behalf of the planning commission to vary any standard,” David said, describing the usual process: “There's a type of thing called a variance that goes to the board of zoning appeals.”
Commissioners encouraged Sibley to supply the plat and the zoning citations and to meet with staff; they said staff could either resolve the question administratively or explain why the setback applies. The petitioner said she had emailed the entire commission after an earlier meeting and had not yet received follow-up contact.
The Planning Commission closed the petitioner portion of its agenda after the exchange and moved to the scheduled work session on the zoning ordinance rewrite.
Next steps for the applicant include providing a plat and the materials she mentioned to Community Development and requesting an appointment so staff can review whether the 30-foot required rear yard for a perimeter lot should be reduced in this instance.
