Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

SE-16-03-160 — NATHANIEL MITCHELL

Request: Special Exception in the R-1A zoning district to convert an existing attached garage into a guest house and Variance to validate the existing residence 13 ft. from the rear property line in lieu of 30 ft. (Note: The applicant was cited by code enforcement for having an ADU without approval shortly after he purchased the property. The kitchen facility has been removed with the exception of a single-compartment sink.)

Decision: Denied

Hearing: The applicant is requesting a Special Exception in the R-1A zoning district to convert an existing attached garage into a guest house, and for a Variance to validate the existing residence thirteen (13) feet from the rear property line in lieu of thirty (30) feet. Staff noted that this was the result of a code enforcement violation. The applicant had indicated that they were cited shortly after they purchased the home. However, Orange County Property Appraiser records indicate that the house was purchased in 2012, and the violation occurred in 2015. The violation was reported by a tenant living in the main house, which only has one meter each for water and electric. The tenant indicated that the person living in the converted garage was using too much electricity and water and not paying for it. Since the violation, the applicant removed the kitchen. However, it was clear, that the two (2) tenants were not related nor living as a family unit, therefore, the house was being used as a rooming house for at least two plus (2+) years. Staff has concerns that this may continue. Plus, the owner does not reside at the address and it is not a homesteaded property. Staff supports granting the variance to validate the structure, however, staff cannot support the Special Exception. Staff recommended that the house be returned to a single family status by opening the converted garage back to a bedroom with bath. The applicant explained that the person who was living in the garage was someone who he invited to do so as they did not have anywhere to live. He acknowledged that the house was one of his rental properties. There being no one in attendance to speak for or against the request, the public hearing was closed. The BZA concurred with staff that the variance should be granted, however, they could not find that the request satisfied the criteria for a Special Exception. A motion was made and seconded to approve the variance, but to deny the Special Exception.