BZA denies after-the-fact deck variance request at 185 Pond Point Ave.

The King and Queen County Board of Zoning Appeals on Nov. 18, 2024, denied VAR24-01, an after-the-fact variance request for a deck at 185 Pond Point Ave., Walkerton. The board voted 5–0 to reject a request to allow the deck to stand 70.11 feet from the front property line instead of the 100-foot front-yard setback required in the county’s Agricultural zoning district.

Staff told the board the structure is a 199.29-square-foot deck that was built without permits and moves the house’s effective setback closer to the road; submitted site sketches show the house before the deck at 83.76 feet from the front property line. Donna Sprouse, Director of Community Development, said the parcel is a pre-existing nonconforming lot in a subdivision recorded in 1973 and that the tax assessor’s records show the house was built in 1974. Sprouse recommended denial, arguing the condition is a self-created hardship because work was completed without required permits and approvals.

Agent Nelson Aguilar, representing the applicant listed in the application as M & H Investments, LLC c/o Liliana Gomez, told the board he did not obtain permits and "did not know that he needed permits," and asked the board to allow the deck because money had already been invested in the structure. A man identified in the transcript as "Mr. Jose" apologized for not obtaining permits and identified himself as the contractor who completed the work; the transcript is inconsistent about the property-owner reference (the application names M & H Investments, LLC c/o Liliana Gomez, while a later speaker is described as the property owner as "Mr. Jose").

Bruce Taylor argued the BZA is constrained by the variance standards and said the first required finding is that the hardship was not created by the applicant; he concluded the hardship was self-created. Taylor stated: "based on the requirements that the BZA is bound to find, the very first one states that any hardship was not created by the applicant or owner for the variance." Ann Marie Voight moved to deny the variance on the basis that the claimed hardship is shared by other properties in the zoning district; Kimberly Sadler seconded the motion. Voting for denial were Taylor, Voight, Sadler, Bland and Coleman.

The board’s decision leaves the deck in violation of the zoning ordinance unless the owner pursues an appeal, requests an alternative remedy, or removes the structure to achieve compliance. Staff noted inspections for the deck had not been completed because permits were not obtained until October 2024, after the construction had been finished. The record also shows the unpermitted work was discovered after the property was listed on Zillow.com and Realtor.com, where images revealed additions and decking.

Code and references cited at the hearing included Zoning Ordinance Article 5, Table 5.1 (minimum dimensional regulations) and the BZA authority under Code of Virginia §15.2-2309. The board provided no conditions that would allow the deck to remain; the motion to deny was final in that hearing. The transcript does not record an appeal filed at the meeting.