## Facts

- James and Christine Garner owned a vacant lot at 122 Prince Street in Alexandria’s Old and Historic Alexandria District, zoned RM.
- The zoning ordinance required two five-foot side yards and a sixteen-foot rear yard for new construction on the lot.
- New construction in the historic district also required a certificate of appropriateness from the Board of Architectural Review (BAR).
- H. Curtiss Martin and Virginia Drewry owned adjoining property at 118 Prince Street and opposed variances affecting setbacks.
- In 2003, City staff recommended denying similar variance requests, finding the lot was buildable without variances and comparable to nearby lots; the application was deferred during related title/alley litigation.
- After the litigation ended, the Garners sought side- and rear-yard variances again, asserting the lot’s dimensions, BAR-driven design constraints, and the desire to preserve visibility of an adjacent historic wall.
- The City of Alexandria Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) granted the variances; the circuit court affirmed on appeal by Martin.

## Issues

1. Whether the BZA lawfully granted side- and rear-yard variances under § 9.18(b) of the City of Alexandria Charter.
2. Whether asserted constraints—lot dimensions, historic-district design requirements, and adjacency to a historic structure—constituted a unique, property-based hardship sufficient for a variance.
3. Whether the circuit court erred by affirming a variance decision that was contrary to the Charter’s variance standard.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the circuit court.
- The Court held the BZA’s grant of variances was contrary to law under § 9.18(b) and set the variances aside.
- The Court concluded the record did not establish a unique physical condition creating a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation.
- The Court rejected reliance on historic-district design controls and aesthetic/contextual considerations as a basis for relaxing setback requirements.

## Legal Principles

- A variance under § 9.18(b) requires a clearly demonstrable hardship tied to the land itself, not shared generally by other properties in the zoning district, and approaching confiscation if the ordinance is strictly applied.
- A variance cannot be granted to obtain a preferred design, increased building envelope, convenience, or the most profitable use when reasonable conforming development remains possible.
- General regulatory constraints applicable within a district, including historic-district architectural requirements, do not constitute the unique property-based hardship required for a variance.
- Courts may defer to local boards on fact-finding but will not uphold a variance decision that misapplies the governing legal standard and is contrary to law.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Virginia set aside the City’s side- and rear-yard variances because the claimed hardships were not unique physical conditions of the property and did not show a near-confiscatory burden; historic-district design constraints and aesthetic goals were insufficient as a matter of law.


Martin v. City of Alexandria, 286 Va. 61, 743 S.E.2d 139 (Va. 2013)