Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Setback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goochland BZA denies variance for Fairground Road porch, citing code and permit lapse
Summary
The Goochland County Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance request for a larger front porch at 2510 Fairground Road on May 18, 2026, voting 3–2. The board cited the lack of statutory findings for a variance and the homeowners’ failure to obtain required permits before construction.
The Goochland County Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a front-porch encroachment at 2510 Fairground Road (VAR 20262) on May 18, voting 3–2. The application sought relief from the county’s front-yard setback on a property in the agricultural limited (A2) district after the owner had installed an 8-by-20 covered porch without first obtaining a building permit; a stop-work order followed and a building permit application was filed and placed on hold pending zoning review.
Board findings and staff presentation: Tara McGee, county attorney appearing on behalf of the zoning administrator, explained that the county now measures setbacks from the "ultimate right of way" (the planned future roadway width) rather than the current pavement edge and described why Fairground Road has a 100-foot setback under the current ordinance. She said nonconforming structures can be repaired but additions that result in greater encroachment toward the road are not permitted without a variance.
Applicant testimony and public comment: The applicant (speaker 14) said the porch and new entrance were installed because the previous stoop and stairs were unsafe, apologized to the board for proceeding without permits and said the work was done by a contractor who did not advise them about required permits. "I apologize for making a mistake...this is our first time purchasing this type of home," the applicant said.
Board deliberation and outcome: Board members discussed the standards for a variance (hardship or physical constraint, and required findings), the 3-foot projection allowance for stairs, and alternatives that would have complied (for example, repairing within the existing footprint or building a smaller 4-by-6 porch). After an initial motion to approve the variance failed, the board passed a motion to deny VAR 20262 on the grounds the application did not meet the findings required for a variance; the denial passed on a 3–2 vote.
Next steps: Staff noted the homeowner has a building-permit application on hold and that options remain to pursue a permitted repair scope, redesign the porch to fit within allowed projections, or seek other lawful remedies. The board advised applicants to follow permit and application procedures before construction.
Provenance: Case introduced at SEG 1302; staff presentation and survey/plat discussion from SEG 1468 onward; final motions and vote recorded by SEG 1992.
