Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-15-08-068 — GUILLERMO LINARES

Request: Variances in the R-1A zoning district as follows: 1) To validate an existing addition (wetbar and restroom) 2.89 ft from the side (north) property line in lieu of 7.5 ft.; and 2) To allow addition to remain 18.5 ft. from the rear property line in lieu of 30 ft. (Note: This is a result of code enforcement action. The applicant covered over 60% or the lot with impervious surface, constructed the addition, which contains a restroom and wetbar, and constructed two sheds without permits. Both sheds and the majority of unpermitted concrete surface will be removed and will be addressed by conditions if approved. The applicant has obtained letters of support from the two most impacted neighbors (north and south) of the subject property.)

Decision: Approved

Hearing: TheThe applicant is requesting Variances in R-1A To validate existing addition (wetbar and restroom) constructed 2.89 ft from the side (north) property line in lieu of 7.5 ft., and 18.5 ft. from the rear property line in lieu of 30 ft. This is a result of code enf action. The applicant covered over 60% or the lot with impervious surface, constructed the addition, which contains a restroom and wetbar, and 2 sheds, all without permits. Both sheds and the majority of unpermitted concrete surface will be removed. The applicant has obtained letters of support from the two most impacted neighbors (n and s) of the subject property. Staff explained that to the rear (west) of the subject property is a 50 ft. wide drainage way, so the rear of the addition is a very significant distance from the nearest home to the west. Staff also noted that there had been six similar variances granted in the neighborhood. BZA discussed the side yard variance request, noting that it was fairly significant. However, noted that one of the past variances was for a side yard even smaller than that being requested. One resident was in attendance to speak on the applicantion. The resident noted that they were not in opposition, they actually supported it. They stated that they wished to have the same front yard driveway configuration the applicant appeared to be proposing, however, they had been denied. Staff and BZA clarified that the BZA had no power to grant such driveway configurations, and all the BZA was considering were the side and rear setbacks of the addition. There being no one else in attendance regarding this request, the public hearing was closed. The BZA concluded that the request was actually less than prior variances granted in the area, and that the two most impacted neighbors consented to the request. A motion was made to approve the requested variance with amendment to Condition #3 to reword to refer to a obtaining all necessary permits, rather than specific demol