BZA divided over whether right‑of‑way status and county delays justify granting a variance

Board discussion on the garage variance centered on whether strict application of the zoning ordinance would unreasonably restrict the property or whether the hardship was self‑created. One member argued the homeowners already have a garage and that the board lacks authority to ‘‘violate code,’’ while other members noted the applicants had waited roughly two years and had relied on prior staff guidance and county attorney review that stalled the abandonment process.

A planning staff presenter told the board there is no known county plan to abandon the recorded 50‑foot right‑of‑way and explained that abandonment would require a written petition to the Board of Supervisors. An applicant representative said she had been told the right‑of‑way might be needed until a final subdivision plat was recorded and cited communications with a county attorney. As Tara Jones stated: "I was told on this that until the final subdivision plaque for parents, landing is recorded there is a small chance that the right of way may still be needed by the county for some purposes." Several members also highlighted turnover in county leadership — including departures in planning and the county attorney’s office — as a factor that prolonged resolution.

The discussion reflected tension between strict statutory criteria for variances and practical impacts, including drainage and wetlands near the proposed garage site. The board ultimately approved the variance by a 3‑2 vote, leaving unresolved the specific status and timeline for right‑of‑way abandonment and adjacent development.