A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Board approves variance for narrow Waldrop lot after owner discusses restoring RPA plantings

June 05, 2026 | Lancaster 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 »

Board approves variance for narrow Waldrop lot after owner discusses restoring RPA plantings
The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a side-yard setback variance for property described by staff as Lot 8 in the Lancaster Shores subdivision to allow construction of a single-family house with a revised footprint.

Miss Pruitt told the board that Richard Waldrip and Julia Waldrip are requesting a 10-foot setback from the eastern side yard where the ordinance requires 20 feet. She said the lot is narrow (1.05 acres), predates the zoning ordinance (subdivision recorded 02/27/1959), and contains brackish wetlands and an existing drain-field location that limit buildable area. According to the staff comparison, the revised house footprint would reduce the amount of impervious area within the 100-foot RPA buffer compared with the footprint previously approved for the lot.

A person who identified himself during public comment said, “I’m Richard Waldorf,” and described plans to retire and build the house himself and to replant trees in the RPA to restore vegetation the previous owner had removed. (Note: the staff memo lists the applicants as Richard Waldrip and Julia Waldrip; the transcript contains both spellings. The board record should be consulted for the official spelling.)

From a Bay Act compliance perspective, one member commented that the revised footprint is preferable because it removes square footage from the RPA. After brief discussion and a site visit by board members, a motion to approve the variance “as requested” was seconded and approved by voice vote.

Outcome: variance approved. The staff packet included a recorded survey, aerial photos, proposed house plan and a comparison of RPA footprints; staff noted any Bay Act plan revisions would be determined by the county’s Bay Act compliance officer if needed.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee