Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-20-11-103 — Charles Faust

Request: Variances in the R-1A zoning district as follows: 1) To allow an existing pergola 6 ft. from the north street side property line in lieu of 15 ft. 2) To allow an existing residence to remain 8 ft. from the north street side property line in lieu of 15 ft. 3) To allow an existing shed to remain 1 ft. from the south side property line in lieu of 5 ft. 4) To allow an existing shed to remain 1 ft. from the west rear property line in lieu of 5 ft. This is the result of code enforcement.

Decision: Approved

Hearing: SYNOPSIS: Staff described the property, the existing improvements, the location of the Fisher St. half right-of-way segment compared to the existing improvements, the year the applicant purchased the property, and the vehicular access to the Fischer St. abutting the subject property and the property to the west. Staff noted that since the segment of Fisher St. abutting the subject property is not open to traffic, with no plans to do so, the subject property functions more like an interior lot than a corner lot. Staff outlined how the proposal satisfies the six (6) criteria which must be met for the granting of a variance, for the existing residence and pergola, and how the proposal does not satisfy the six (6) criteria pertaining to the variances for the shed. Staff noted that as of the preparation of the presentation, they had received four (4) correspondence in favor of the requests, and two (2) in opposition. Since that time staff has received two (2) more in opposition. The applicant added to the staff presentation and explained how the two accessory structures were existing when they purchased the property, and that they were cited by code enforcement in 2018 for the construction of the pergola which was constructed by the prior owner. One (1) individual spoke in favor and four (4) spoke in opposition. Those in opposition maintained that the applicant did build the pergola, and that the segment of Fisher St. abutting the subject property is open and maintained. In rebuttal, the applicant reiterated that the two accessory structures were on the property when they purchased the property, and while they did erect a section of fence along Fisher St. without permits, they were working with Public Works to get the fence cleared up. The BZA concluded that the fact that Fisher St. will not be open to traffic is a special condition and circumstance and because the structures were on the property when the applicant purchased the property is not self-created. Also,