Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-03-04-032 — John Ball

Request: Variance in A-2 (agricultural) zone to construct detached accessory building (stable, garage, recreation room) as follows: 1) 3,504 sq. ft. in lieu of 3,000; 2) 28 ft. in height in lieu of 15 ft.

Decision: Approved

Hearing: The lot is large, five acres, and the applicant has a very large house with steep roof pitches. The size requested for the accessory building is only 504 square feet over the maximum allowed per Code based on the Agricultural zoning and the size of the lot. The extra height was requested by the applicant so that the appearance of the accessory building would be compatible with the appearance of the house. The accessory building is for a horse stable, storage garage, and a family recreation room. Staff reported two letters had been received from neighboring property owners with concerns about drainage. They indicated that fill activity when the applicant cleared it for construction of this house created flooding problems, and they were concerned that this large accessory building would worsen the situation. There are still flooding problems. Staff contacted the Stormwater Management Office and confirmed the drainage issue problem, and we learned that their staff was attempting to obtain a drainage easement from the applicant. Based on the discussion with Stormwater Management, Zoning staff recommended BZA condition their Variance approval upon the County's approval of a Drainage Plan. One of the letter writers spoke at the public hearing to reiterate her concern about the drainage problem. She stated they had no opposition to the applicant's accessory building project as she felt the use was appropriate and would be built in good taste. Her concern was the drainage problem and she encouraged the BZA to attach the Drainage Plan condition to their Variance approval. The applicant stated he would agree to continue to work with the County but preferred not to be tied to the condition as it would hold up his building plans. However, based on the letters and testimony received from the neighboring property owners, the BZA felt it was imperative to handle the drainage issue in an expeditious and timely fashion. During the public hearing, the BZA lear*