Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-19-03-004 — ZOE KRISLOCK

Request: Variance in the R-1AA zoning district to allow a cumulative total of 1,416 sq. ft. of accessory floor area in lieu of 927 sq. ft.

Decision: Approved

Hearing: Staff explained that after the applicant purchased the property, they found that none of the improvements on the property had ever been permitted. They obtained a demolition permit for the existing house, which had been constructed in 1963 per the Property Appraiser's data. They then obtained a permit for a new home, which will include an existing guest house which was approved by Special Exception and Variance approval in 1991, but also constructed without a permit. The only remaining outstanding issue is obtaining a permit to demolish the existing carport, and replace it the proposed structure. Staff explained that the subject property was part of the Lake Mary Jane Rural Settlement. Because the subdivision in which the subject property was platted in 1956, it was assigned the zoning it currently has in 1957. When the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the property with similar zoning to the subject property was placed in a Low Density Residential Future Land Use (FLU), which permits up to four (4) units per acre, despite the fact that no public utilities are available to the area. This was done due to the fact that the area was completely platted. However, the remainder of the land in the Rural Settlement was placed in the RS 1/1 FLU, which permits a maximum density of up to one (1) unit per acre, and a zoning of A-2. If someone where to propose something similar without public utilities, it would likely be denied. Due to the size of the subject property, had it been assigned a zoning of A-2, it would be entitled to up to 2,000 sq. ft. of accessory floor area, and no variance would be needed. Further, due to the dense vegetation in this area, the proposed structure will not be visible from the road, nor from adjacent properties. Finally, staff concluded by noting that there were two (2) neighboring residents in support, however, no commentaries objecting had been received. The applicant indicated their agreement with the staff recommendation and