Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-21-01-124 — Kettly Francois

Request: Variances in the A-1 zoning district as follows: 1) To allow an existing 1,752 sq. ft. residence 48 ft. from the rear (east) setback in lieu of 50 ft. 2) To allow a 2,916 sq. ft. addition 22 ft. from the west front property line in lieu of 35 ft. 3) To allow a 2,916 sq. ft. addition 5 ft. from the north side property line in lieu of 10 ft. 4) To allow a 2,916 sq. ft. addition 42 ft. from the rear (east) property line in lieu of 50 ft. 5) To allow an existing 126 sq. ft. shed to remain 4 ft. from the rear (east) property line in lieu of 5 ft. 6) To allow an existing 316 sq. ft. shed to remain 3 ft. from the south side property line in lieu of 5 ft.

Decision: Approved

Hearing: Staff described the property, which is nonconforming due to insufficient lot area, as being developed with an existing single-family home and two (2) sheds, all of which are encroaching into a setback. No permits could be found for the sheds. It was possible, through use of past aerial photography, to confirm that one of he sheds was in existence prior to the applicant purchasing the property. Staff noted that the existing residence, which was constructed by a previuos owner was already two (2) ft. into the rear setback. Due to the angle that the house sits on the lot, following the existing rear building line forces the addition further into the rear setback. The proposed addition will nearly double the size of the home. Staff noted that the applicant could scale back and redesign the proposed addition to make it fit without the need for any variances, and that the sheds could be relocated to comply with the setbacks. Because the existing residences location has a minor encroachment since 1971, when it was constructed, staff was recommending approval of the variance for that situation. However, staff was recommending denial of the remaining variances for the addition and the sheds. Staff noted that the applicant had provided letters of support from the three (3) abutting property owner and from one property owner to the west across Florence St. No correspondence in opposition had been received. The applicant acknowledged that the design was prepared by a licensed professional, who determined that the proposed design best blended the existing house with the proposed addition, and provided what was determined to be needed by the applicant. There was no one present to speak in favor or in opposition to the request. The BZA concluded that the nonconforming status of the lot constrained the applicants ability to build a home meeting their needs. In addition, the orientation of the home on the lot further constrains the ability to expand the home. Due to the