Board approves density variance allowing single‑family dwelling on pre‑existing lot in Grayson County

The Grayson County Board of Zoning Appeals on May 21 approved application 20260076, granting a density variance to allow placement of a mobile home or single‑family dwelling on a pre‑existing, nonconforming lot at 2490 Liberty Hill Road (tax map 24‑A342C1).

Jada, presenting the staff report, said the parcel was created before adoption of the county’s zoning ordinance and had previously contained a mobile home. She explained that the parcel does not meet the Rural Farm district density standard and that a demo‑and‑replace administrative exception (which would avoid a variance if exercised within two years) had elapsed. "I was able to determine that he justifiably does fit that," Jada said, recommending approval under Virginia Code §15.2‑2309.

Jada’s presentation referenced a parcel size in the staff packet of approximately ±0.52 acres and a deed/survey from 1980 showing the lot was cut out before the zoning ordinance. The resolution read into the record, however, describes the lot as "approximately plus or minus 0.12 acres." The transcript shows staff acknowledged and corrected a typographical error in the packet regarding the applicant name and indicated the record would reflect the corrected information.

The board opened the public hearing and reported no in‑person speakers; Jada read a May 18 letter from adjoining landowner Kenneth Landrith stating his support for the variance. After brief discussion of setbacks and a question about whether Liberty Hill Road is on any imminent widening plan (staff said it is not on the six‑year plan), the board moved, seconded and approved a resolution finding the variance satisfied the legal criteria under Va. Code §15.2‑2309 and authorized variance 20260076. The clerk conducted a roll call and the chair recorded the vote as unanimous.

Staff said it will send a confirmation letter to the applicant and explained next steps for zoning approval and the building permit process.

The record contains inconsistent transcriptions of the applicant’s name in packet pages (referred to variously as Mr. Vaughn and Douglas Fawn) and a noted packet typo that the presenter said would be corrected in the record; the article uses the name "Douglas Fawn" as it appears in the later read corrections in the meeting.