Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-14-12-083 — Dominique Buhot

Request: Variances in the R-1AA zoning district as follows: 1) To construct 6 ft. high fence in the front yard in lieu of 4 ft.; 2) To place accessory structure (solar panel) in front yard in lieu of side or rear yards; and, 3) To place accessory structure (solar panel) 1.5 ft. from front (north) property line and 7.3 ft. from side (east) property line in lieu of 30 ft. and 7.5 ft., respectively.

Decision: Approved

Hearing: The applicant is requesting variances in the R-1AA zoning district to construct a six foot tall fence/wall in the front setback in lieu of four foot, to place an accessory structure (solar panel) in the front yard in lieu of side or rear yards, and to place an accessory structure (solar panel) 1.5 ft. from front (north) property line and 7.3 ft. from side (east) property line in lieu of 30 ft. and 7.5 ft., respectively.

Staff outlined the request, noting that the applicant did not appear to have met the criteria for a variance. There did not appear to be circumstances unique to the property, nor were solar panels an accessory use typically considered for location in a front yard on a lake lot, and some residents felt that placing the panels in the front yard would pose a detrimental intrusion into the neighborhood.

The applicant explained that the intent was to complete the home, which had been started in 2007, and had experienced several defaults. He had spent a considerable sum of money to make changes to the original design to make the home highly energy efficient. The intent was to place a dense vegetative barrier behind the fence to buffer the view of the panel. He would place the panel on his roof, however, because of the variations in the roofline, the panels would protrude and be very unsightly to the neighbors.

The BZA discussed the request, noting that they were not opposed to the concept of energy efficiency, however, they could not see how such a request met the criteria for a variance. This was the first such application for solar panels, and what they did would set a precedent for future cases. The BZA found that the applicant had not met the requirements for a variance and unanimously voted to deny the application. There were no residents in attendance regarding this request. Staff received 2 commentaries in favor and 4 commentaries in opposition.