Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-18-08-107 — CHARLES GOODWIN

Request: Variances in the R-1AA zoning district as follows: 1) To validate an existing accessory structure with 1,200 sq. ft. of floor area in lieu of 500 sq. ft. 2) To validate an existing structure with 22 ft. of height in lieu of 20 ft.

Decision: Approved

Hearing: Staff explained that the subject property was approximately 70% larger than the typical R-1AA zoned piece of property. In addition, because it is located at the base of a small sand ridge which exist within the neighborhood, adjacent structures actually appear to be physically taller than the accessory structure. Given the size and contour of the property, some type of variance is warranted, though not that requested by the applicant. Staff noted that correspondence supporting the request had been receive from 10 neighbors, including all of those abutting the subject property. No correspondence in opposition had been received. The applicant explained that they had started out with just a pole barn originally. They admitted that they had made a mistake in not submitting for a building permit. The would like to keep what they have constructed, however, if the BZA did not believe that size of a variance was warranted, they would appreciate it if the BZA would accept removing just the porch. The applicant's wife added that they would love to keep the family compound as it is. The purpose for the larger storage was to allow them to expand their family in the same neighborhood where the applicant had grown up by moving the what is stored in the house out to the new storage, converting the storage to living area to living area to accommodate their growing family. The Chief Code Enforcement Officer gave a brief explanation of the history of the code enforcement case pending against the property, stating that what the BZA decides will be the ultimate compliance requirement. There being no other persons present to speak for or against the request, the public hearing was closed. The BZA discussed whether 900 or 1,200 sq. ft. was the appropriate size given the specifics of the subject property. A motion was made to recommend that the applicant be allowed to retain the entire 1,200 sq. ft. as constructed. That motion passed by a vote of 3-1.