Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-20-04-012 — Robert Wayner

Request: Variances in the R-CE-C zoning district to allow a tennis court as follows: 1) To be set back 5 ft. from the east side property line in lieu of 10 ft. 2) To be set back 5 ft. from the south rear property line in lieu of 10 ft.

Decision: Approved

Hearing: SYNOPSIS: Staff noted that the applicant wished to have a full size tennis court, and that the applicant had told the builder that they wanted the house built right at the 10 ft. side setback line to ensure a tennis court and a future pool could be placed in the rear yard. However, the builder constructed the home 20 ft. from the side property line. The builder, who builds extensively in the City of Windermere, thought that the side and rear setbacks for tennis courts were five (5) ft., which are the setbacks in the City. Staff explained that the applicant could relocate the court to meet the setbacks, or they could reduce the court by 2 1/2 ft. on each side and each end to allow it to stay in the proposed location and meet setbacks. Staff noted that as of the prior day, they had received correspondence from nine (9) neighbors in support and two (2) in opposition. However, as of the prior night, additional correspondence was sent via e-mail, which staff did not have an opportunity to plot on a map. That brought the count to ten (10) in support and six (6) in opposition. The opposition did not state any reason. The applicant noted that they had several letters from neighbors strongly supporting their request. One (1) neighbor purposefully grew a hedge along their common property line to a height of 10 ft. in anticipation of the court. They noted how it was very apparent that the court had always been anticipated by how the court fits perfectly to the shape of the yard. They noted that the National Park Service and a National Recreational Organization each published standards for courts, which recommend the exact design that is being proposed and stated that it is dangerous to reduce the size of the recovery area, as one could run into a pipe supporting the fencing. Regarding relocating the court, it would be right next to an eight (8) ft. tall three paned glass bay window. There being no one wishing to speak in favor or opposition to the request, the publ