BZA approves setback variance at 417 Fairmont Avenue to allow first‑floor bedroom addition

The Winchester Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance on July 8 to allow a homeowner at 417 Fairmont Avenue to build a rear addition that would reduce the side‑yard setback to roughly 6 feet, enabling a ground‑floor bedroom intended to let the owner 'age in place.' The decision was reached after staff said it could not find the legal hardship required under Virginia law, but a majority of board members voted to grant the variance with conditions.

Mr. Davis, a city staff member, told the board the property is zoned low‑density residential with a historic‑district overlay, is approximately 57 feet wide and 209 feet deep, and was historically a four‑unit building converted back to single‑family. He said the ordinance currently requires a 10‑foot side setback, the existing structure sits about 5 feet 8 inches from the side property line, and the proposed addition would be about 6 feet from the line. "As of this time, I don't believe [the reasonable modification criterion] is applicable," Mr. Davis said, summarizing staff’s view that the submission did not demonstrate the physical hardship required by state code.

The homeowner, identified in the hearing as Ms. Darby and sworn to testify, said she rehabilitated the house from four units to a single‑family residence and intends to remain there as she ages. "I bought the home and I brought it back from 4 apartments to the single family residence," she said. "My intention of living in that house was to age in place. I am a registered nurse...and I'm assuming I'm going to need [accessibility] someday." A contractor or representative, Mr. Hopkins, also testified about the extent of prior renovation work and the desire to avoid disturbing interior casework.

During deliberations board members debated whether granting the variance would set an undesirable precedent because many historic‑district houses have nonconforming setbacks. One member calculated the proposed change and expressed concern about opening a "Pandora's box" of similar requests; others said the property’s L‑shaped rear and limited lot depth make alternatives impractical and that updating zoning policy would be the job of City Council rather than the BZA.

A committee member moved to grant the variance (BZA 26‑2) on condition that a building permit must be applied for and approved within one year or the variance is null and void; that the variance be limited to the proposed addition as shown in the submitted floor plan; and that any future additions in the setback will require a new variance. The motion passed by roll call: Mr Paul — No; Miss Shaner — Yes; Mr Wilson — Yes; Miss Bloom — Yes; Chairwoman Marsha — Yes.

The variance is therefore approved with the stated limits; the board emphasized that new construction must meet current zoning and building codes, and that policy changes affecting many properties would need City Council action.