Goochland BZA denies variance request for front porch encroachment at Fairground Road property
May 18, 2026 | Goochland County, Virginia
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Goochland County Board of Zoning Appeals on May 18 denied variance application VAR 20262, a request to allow a covered porch to encroach into the front-yard setback at 2510 Fairground Road.
Clerk reading of the application identified the applicant as Vladimir Kadesha and the one-acre parcel as zoned Agricultural Limited A2. The applicant's representative (his wife) told the board they had replaced a deteriorated porch to create safer access and only later learned a permit was required; they apologized and said they would learn from the mistake.
County Attorney Tara McGee and staff explained why the variance raised legal and safety concerns: the current ordinance requires a 100-foot setback along major thoroughfares measured from the "ultimate right of way," not simply from the current pavement edge. McGee said Fairground Road's ultimate right-of-way is 115 feet and that measurements used by staff (57.5 feet from center line) yield the 100-foot setback used in the analysis. She told the board the applicant's new porch (described in staff materials as roughly 8 by 20 feet) would encroach by nearly 40 feet into the setback calculation and that relief by variance is intended only for rare, specific hardship conditions.
Board members weighed competing concerns: some said the porch improved safety and property appearance and noted the county may not widen Fairground Road for many years, while others stressed precedent and the need for property owners to follow permitting rules. An initial motion to approve the variance failed; a subsequent motion to deny VAR 20262 carried on a 3'to'3 roll-call vote.
The board's decision reflects the panel's determination that the variance criteria were not met: the structure did not show the required unique physical hardship or the five findings on the ordinance's standards that justify a variance. Staff noted the owners remain eligible to redesign within the existing nonconforming allowances (for example, limited porch projections and stair projections) or to pursue other, permitted modifications that do not further reduce the setback.
The clerk will notify the applicants of the denial and the decision will be reflected in the official minutes.
Clerk reading of the application identified the applicant as Vladimir Kadesha and the one-acre parcel as zoned Agricultural Limited A2. The applicant's representative (his wife) told the board they had replaced a deteriorated porch to create safer access and only later learned a permit was required; they apologized and said they would learn from the mistake.
County Attorney Tara McGee and staff explained why the variance raised legal and safety concerns: the current ordinance requires a 100-foot setback along major thoroughfares measured from the "ultimate right of way," not simply from the current pavement edge. McGee said Fairground Road's ultimate right-of-way is 115 feet and that measurements used by staff (57.5 feet from center line) yield the 100-foot setback used in the analysis. She told the board the applicant's new porch (described in staff materials as roughly 8 by 20 feet) would encroach by nearly 40 feet into the setback calculation and that relief by variance is intended only for rare, specific hardship conditions.
Board members weighed competing concerns: some said the porch improved safety and property appearance and noted the county may not widen Fairground Road for many years, while others stressed precedent and the need for property owners to follow permitting rules. An initial motion to approve the variance failed; a subsequent motion to deny VAR 20262 carried on a 3'to'3 roll-call vote.
The board's decision reflects the panel's determination that the variance criteria were not met: the structure did not show the required unique physical hardship or the five findings on the ordinance's standards that justify a variance. Staff noted the owners remain eligible to redesign within the existing nonconforming allowances (for example, limited porch projections and stair projections) or to pursue other, permitted modifications that do not further reduce the setback.
The clerk will notify the applicants of the denial and the decision will be reflected in the official minutes.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
