Goochland BZA approves small front-yard setback variance for Thompson porch, 4–1

The Goochland County Board of Zoning Appeals voted 4–1 on May 19 to approve variance VAR-2025-00001, permitting a covered porch at 3951 County Line Road to remain closer than the A‑1 district's 75-foot front-yard setback.

Eric Eugene Thompson asked the board for relief, saying the previous stoop had crumbled and that he built a covered porch to keep his family safe after a near-accident involving his 4‑year‑old grandson. "We would appreciate it if y'all would give us this variance so we could get it finished up and move on with our life," Thompson said during his presentation. Thompson and a co-applicant said they did not know a building permit was required; they later applied and obtained a survey after a stop-work order was issued.

Jamie Sherry, director of community development, told the board the request was for a variance from the A‑1 front-yard setback for a covered deck of roughly 200 square feet. Sherry identified the governing legal standards the board must apply, noting both state statute and local code require specific findings before a variance can be granted. Kelly Kemp, representing the county, said staff believes the applicants "haven't met their burden" under the variance test and outlined why staff could not recommend approval on strictly legal grounds.

Neighbors spoke in favor. Dawn Cornell, who said she lives across the street, read letters from adjacent property owners stating they had no objection and that the porch would improve neighborhood aesthetics. Jonathan Lyle, who identified himself as a member of the Board of Supervisors but spoke personally, urged the BZA to apply "common sense" and said he would vote to grant the variance.

Board debate centered on two competing considerations: whether the legal criteria for a variance were satisfied and whether denying the request would impose an undue hardship on a family needing a safe entry. Board member Babbitt opposed, saying the statutory findings were not met and warning that approval could create an unequal exception for one property. Other members cited the safety concern, the modest size of the encroachment, delays in county response since October, and neighbor support as reasons to approve.

When the board moved to approve "as presented," the motion was seconded and a roll-call vote was taken: yes votes from McDonald, Cook, Cosby and Lacey; no vote from Babbitt. The board passed VAR-2025-00001 on a 4–1 vote. The chair noted the lengthy timeline since the matter began in October and urged review of county procedures and ordinances to avoid similar delays.

What happens next: the variance was approved by the BZA; if the county's permitting or inspection process identifies outstanding code issues, the applicants may still need to complete required work (shingles, handrails) and satisfy building-permit conditions. If the BZA had denied the variance, staff said the likely outcome would have been removal of the structure or pursuing rezoning, which is a lengthier process.

The BZA approved minutes from its Jan. 27 meeting and adjourned.