Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-17-12-135 — STEPHANIE AND KEITH HOOVER

Request: Variances in the R-CE zoning district to renovate an existing residence as follows: 1) Front (north) setback of 25 ft. in lieu of 35 ft.; 2) Side (east) setback of 5 ft. in lieu of 10 ft.; and 3) To allow a covered screened-in patio 45 ft. from the Normal High Water Elevation (NHWE) of Lake Sheen and a screened-in pool and deck 25 ft. from the NHWE of Lake Sheen in lieu of 50 ft. (Note: The lot size and lot width are grandfathered in as the lot was platted prior to the establishment of Orange County Zoning Regulations. The applicant recently purchased the home. The lot has an average depth of 140 ft. The current residence has a one-car garage which the applicant intends to convert to living area and add a new attached two-car garage to the east side of the home. The setback from the NHWE is for a pool with deck and patio.)

Decision: Approved

Hearing: Staff explained that the entire subdivision was rezoned in 1967 to R-CE from either R-1 or R-1A. As a result, the entire subdivision became nonconforming with regard to lot width, size, depth, etc. Had the zoning remained as it was, the applicants would need little or no variances to do what they propose. As such, the County imposed the hardship. Staff noted that EPD had requested condition #7 to reduce pollutants from entering into Lake Sheen. Staff also noted that Condition #1 was amended to reference a new Condition #8. Condition #8 requires that a discrepancy on the site plan be clarified regarding the side setback for the proposed garage prior to submitting for permits. Staff also showed a graphic of the numerous similar variances granted throughout the neighborhood. The applicant noted that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation and conditions. They also noted that they had been in discussion with the neighbors who own the property to the east, and as a result, they are changing the front setback request from 25 ft. to 30 ft. The neighbor who owns that property then noted that they were in support of the variance as amended. Staff noted that they would add the amended front setback to Condition #8. There being no one else present to speak for or against the request, the public hearing was closed. The BZA concluded that the request were the result of past action by the County, and without the variances, the applicants would be denied the same rights others in this zoning district are enjoying. A motion to recommend approval passed unanimously.