Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-20-02-165 — Jeffrey Sobek

Request: Variances in the R-CE zoning district as follows: 1) To allow an existing residence to remain 5.4 ft. from the south side property line in lieu of 10 ft. 2) To allow a second story addition to an existing one-story home at 5.4 ft. from the south side property line in lieu of 10 ft. 3) To allow a pool deck at 21.5 ft. from the rear yard setback in lieu of 50 ft. 4) To allow a pool at 27.3 ft. from the rear yard setback in lieu of 50 ft. 5) To allow a pool deck at 21.5 ft. from the Normal High Water Elevation (NHWE) in lieu of 50 ft. 6) To allow a pool at 27.3 ft. from the NHWE in lieu of 50 ft. 7) To allow a detached accessory structure to remain in front of the principal residence with a side (south) setback of 5 ft. in lieu of 10 ft.

Decision: Approved

Hearing: Staff explained the history of the property, including the fact that in 1967, the County administratively rezoned the property from A-1, R-1 and R-1A to R-CE. The rezoning resulted in 10 ft. side setbacks, which made both the house and the garage nonconforming structures. The variances for the existing structures will ensure that they can be rebuilt if necessary, and the vaiance for the 2nd story addition will allow the side wall to follow the same line as the 1st floor wall. Staff recommended a reduction of seven (7) ft. from the overall length of the combined improvement for the deck and pool. Staff noted that it had received three (3) correspondences in support, two (2) in opposition, and one (1) via telephone which agrees with a reduction in the overall length of the deck and pool, but would like more stringent water quality protection than normal. The applicant's agent explained that the issue with reducing the deck between the house and pool was one of space. They contended that due to the narrowness of the lot and house, reducing the patio to a depth of 10 ft. would leave little room if a table and chairs were placed there. They offered to reduce the depth of the deck to 15 ft., which would result in setbacks of 23.5 ft. for the deck and 29.3 ft. for the pool from the rear property line and NHWE. The applicant noted that they have two (2) young children, and reducing the depth of the deck to 10 ft. would leave less room for play and safety. They were also offering to install a swale to collect the runoff from the patio. There being no one present to speak in favor or opposition to the request, the public hearing was closed. The BZA discussed the design and concluded that the applicant's compromise would increase the separation distance, but leave the applicant with sufficient room. The BZA unanimously recommended approval of Variances #1, #2 and #7 as proposed, and for reduced variances of 23.5 ft. for Variances #3 and #5, and 29.3 ft. for Variances