At least part of the terminology problem is questionable self-consistency. For example, let us propose one plausibly self-consistent approach to relative variance. Such a system would have the property that the logarithms of the data are normally distributed, that is, that the errors of measurement are proportional type. Then, the anti-logarithms of the average logarithm of the independent or dependent variables would be good measures of location. Also, the relative measurements are then normally distributed such that transformed $\bar{x}_{new}$ and $\sigma_{new}$ become dimensionless.
In terms of the original data, for a proportional system, $$RV = \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \left(\frac{x_i}{\bar{x}_{new}} -1 \right)^2 = \sigma^2 \; .$$ In a more general context, what relative variance means depends on the distribution types of the data, and, for some distributions, it is not as useful a concept as for other distributions.