Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-17-12-130 — GARY VANHOUTEN

Request: Variances in the R-CE zoning district as follows: 1) To allow a lot size of .55 acres in lieu of 1 acre; 2) To allow a rear setback of 28 ft. in lieu of 50 ft.; 3) To allow the existing house and a new front porch extension to be 20 ft. from the front property line in lieu of 35 ft.; and 4) To allow a cumulative total of 1,056 sq. ft. of accessory floor area (192 sq. ft. storage shed & 864 sq. ft. garage) to remain in lieu of 500 sq. ft. (Note: The subject property is two lots combined as one. The applicant recently purchased the property with the intention of renovating it. The front setback requested is for the existing home and the proposed addition to it. The rear yard setback of 28 ft. is for the conversion of the existing carport into a bedroom. The 864 sq. ft. garage was constructed by way of a variance granted in November 1990. The smaller shed was constructed by the prior owner.)

Decision: Approved

Hearing: Staff explained that the residence was originally constructed in 1978 when the subdivision in which it is located was zoned R-1AA. However, in 1982, the County rezoned all of the lots in the subdivision to either A-1, or R-CE, which rendered the entire subdivision nonconforming. Staff provided a graphic showing that a large number of lots in the subdivision were granted variances to develop substandard lots with reduced front and rear setbacks. Staff noted that the proposed addition to the front follows the existing building line and does not increase the encroachment. The addition to the rear of the home will take up the area currently used as an elevated deck. The garage had been constructed with a variance granted in 1990. The applicants purchased the property as is and would like to keep the second accessory structure. In essence, most of the variances need for this application result from the County's rezoning of the property. Staff noted that they had received one correspondence in favor of the application and non in opposition. The one in support was from the neighbor living immediately behind the subject property. The applicant indicated their agreement with the staff recommendation and conditions. There being no one present to speak for or against the request the public hearing was closed. The BZA concluded that the need for variances were not self imposed, and that the hardship to the land was the result of the County's rezoning the land to R-CE. A motion to recommend approval passed unanimously.