Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-17-05-033 — DEAN PULLER

Request: SEE CONDITIONS Variances in the R-1A zoning district as follows: 1) To allow accessory structures with a cumulative total of 1,008 sq. ft. of floor area in lieu of 500 sq. ft.; 2) To locate an accessory structure (carport) in front of the residence in lieu of alongside or rear; and, 3) To validate an existing shed with a 0 ft. setback from the side (south) property line in lieu of five (5) ft. (Note: The applicant is proposing a 700 sq. ft. (20 ft. x 35 ft.) carport in front of their residence. The subject property is a lakefront lot. There is an existing 308 sq. ft. shed (14 ft. x 22 ft.) in the rear yard. The applicant has submitted 2 letters of support from neighbors.)

Decision: Approved

Hearing: Staff explained that the applicant was requesting a variance to allow the construction of a new carport for their existing residential vehicles. What is at issue is the existence of a 308 sq. ft. shed in the rear yard which was there when the applicant purchased the property. When added to the proposed carport, the variance exceeds 100%. Staff noted that the subject property, and all properties in the west side of Conway Gardens Rd. were significantly larger than that required by the R-1A zoning district. Further the proposed carport would be over 100 ft. from the front property line. Staff also noted that four (4) residents, including those immediately north and south of the subject property, had submitted correspondence in support of the request, while no correspondence in opposition had been submitted. Finally, a past variance for a property on Lake La Grange had been approved in the past for a 750 sq. ft. accessory structure in lieu of 500 sq. ft. The applicant explained that the prior owner had enclosed an attached carport, converting it to a master bedroom. They really needed a carport to protect their vehicles. The BZA asked if they could store what was in the shed under the new carport. The applicant explained that the carport would be open air on the sides and would offer no security for the lawn care and fishing equipment stored in the existing shed. They also offered that the owner of the property closest to the existing shed had no problem with it. There being no one to speak for or against the request. The BZA concluded the request was not adverse to the general public.