Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-16-02-149 — JACK BARNES

Request: Variance in the A-2 zoning district to validate a total of 3,649 sq. ft. of existing accessory use floor area in lieu of 1,000 sq. ft. (Note: A total of 2,949 sq. ft. of accessory structure use existed when the applicant purchased the property in 2012. The applicant added 700 sq. ft. of accessory use area without a permit. This is the result of code enforcement action.)

Decision: Approved

Hearing: a building permit was in fact issued in 1984 for a 1,200 square foot accessory structure. It is uncertain what the maximum allowable floor area was at that time. Given the square footage of the accessory structure when the applicant purchased it, it is clear that prior owners had added onto the original structure by 1,749 square feet. Staff concluded by noting that there is a long-standing misunderstanding about what permits are required on land zoned agricultural. A contractor was hired to construct the 700 square feet addition, and informed the applicant that no permits were needed since the land was zoned A-2. One (1) resident was in attendance to speak in opposition to the request. The resident owned the land immediately to the west which is zoned R-1A, and had owned it since 1976. Further, the resident indicated that he did not expect anyone to tell the applicant to tear down what was there; but stated, had he known of the permit issue in 1984, that he may have objected to it if he was able to do so. The BZA concluded that it was actually dealing with two (2) different issues. The first was whether they should validate the square footage which the applicant had purchased, as this clearly was not the result of the applicants actions, being a preexisting condition. The second issue was whether they should also validate the action of the applicant in constructing the 700 sq. ft. addition without a permit. A motion was made and seconded to validate the 2, 949 sq. ft. originally purchased by the applicant. A second motion was made to deny the 700 sq. ft. addition constructed by the applicant based on the fact that the applicant had relied on a professional contractor to construct the improvement, and the contractor did not pursue a building permit. The motion was seconded; however, it failed to pass due to a tie vote (3-3). Therefore, a condition was added to the approval stating that the approval was for 2,949 sq. ft. only