Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

SE-18-08-103 — MICHAEL MCCOURT

Request: Special Exception and Variances in the R-1A zoning District as follows: 1) Special Exception to permit a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) over a detached garage. 2) Variance to allow a detached ADU in front of the principal structure in lieu of along side or behind. 3) Variance to allow a detached ADU over a garage with a height of 29 ft. in lieu of 20 ft. 4) Variance to allow a cumulative total of 1,144 sq. ft. of accessory structure floor area in lieu of 732 sq. ft. (25% of living area of principal residence). 5) Variance to allow a structure 22 ft. from the front property line in lieu of 25 ft. Note: The existing septic drainfield is located between the principal residence and the proposed ADU, which precludes meeting the front setback.

Decision: Approved

Hearing: Staff explained that the lot is 3 1/2 times the size of a normal lot in the R-1A zoning district. In addition, the main residence was constructed over 100 ft. from the front property line to maximize the lot's lake frontage. As a result, from the street, the main residence can not be seen. Therefore, the ADU/garage will actually appear from the street to be the principal residence. The ADU will be occupied by the applicant's father. The need for the height variance is to make the living area above the garage more functional from a headroom perspective. Staff noted that the three most impacted neighbors have all submitted letters of support. The applicant actually increased the side setback from 10 to w0 ft. to accommodate the neighbor to the west. No correspondence in opposition were receive. The applicant noted that they are in complete agreement with the staff recommendation and with the conditions of approval. The applicant did add that the large oak near the future site of the ADU will need to be removed as the ADU will cover too much of the tree's root zone. There being no one in attendance to speak for or against the request, the public hearing was closed. The BZA concluded that there was no other logical location on the lot to place the use. A motion to recommend approval of the Special Exception and all requested variances passed unanimously.