Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

SE-17-03-004 — JASILA LOUIS

Request: Special Exception in the R-1 zoning district to convert existing structure into a 750 sq. ft. detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) with the following Variances (SE - DENIED): 1) To allow a detached ADU with 6,850 sq. ft. of lot area in lieu of 7,500 sq. ft. (DENIED); 2) ADU to be located 3 ft. from the rear (north) property line in lieu of 10 ft. (DENIED); 3) To validate an existing shed located 0 ft. from the side (west) property line in lieu of 5 ft., and 1.5 ft. from the rear (north) property line in lieu of 5 ft. (DENIED); and, 4) To validate an existing carport located 20 ft. from the front (south) property line in lieu of 25 ft. (APPROVED w/CONDITIONS)

Decision: Denied

Hearing: Staff gave a presentation on the case. It addressed the request, photos of the site, the zoning in the area and a brief analysis. The applicant confirmed they do not live in the house, and stated the structures were there when they bought the house in June, last year. They also stated they were renting the main house, but were evicting the tenant. Two people spoke in opposition, stating that work was being done on the back building, and the work continued after they were cited. They also stated that they observed signs advertising both units for rent. Code Enforcement confirmed that they responded to a citizen complaint, and found that the rear building was being converted into a 3 bedroom house. The applicant pulled a roof permit, but the Building Division issued a stop work order for exceeding the scope of work. The BZA noted that work was done without permits, and stated the building was in the wrong place for the proposal. The BZA felt the request fell short of meeting the requirements for approval, as there were no special circumstances, that the structure appears to be a rental, the problems were self created, the property was purchased as is, and allowing the use to continue would confer special privilege to this applicant. Staff received 2 commentaries in favor of the application and 3 in opposition. The BZA made a motion to deny the Special Exception and variances #1 and #2, and to approve variances #3 and #4. The motion failed. The BZA made a second motion to deny the Special Exception and variances #1, #2 and #3, and to approve variance #4. The motion was approved by the BZA.