Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-20-01-146 — Venue Investments 8 LLC (Amit Ghosh)

Request: Variances in the P-O zoning district as follows: 1) Total of 4 parking spaces in lieu of 7 spaces. (Approved w/Conditions) 2) One parking space at 8 ft. x 18 ft. in lieu of 9 ft. X 20 ft. with 144 sq. ft. of area in lieu of 180 ft. (Approved w/Conditions) 3) Two parking spaces at 9 ft. x 18 ft. in lieu of 9 ft. x 20 ft. and 162 sq. ft. of area in lieu of 180 sq. ft. (DENIED)

Decision: Approved

Hearing: Staff discussed the history of the property including the rezoning which took place in 1986. In the minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting where the property was rezoned, the Commission noted that variance would be needed to convert the property to a non-residential use. Staff noted that variances to the lot width, lot area, parking requirements and the side setback had been obtained and revised in 2002, however, the conversion of the property did not take place. The obtained the property in 2016, under the understanding that the property was a residence. It was not until a permit was obtained to repair damage that they learned that the conversion to an office use needed to be completed. Staff noted that due to the presence of the site's septic system in the rear yard, the inability to gain adequate vehicular access to the rear of the property, and the lack of adequate space in front of the building, it was not possible to provide the required parking. The prior variance had granted a reduction in parking from seven (7) spaces to five (5) spaces, and the applicant was not requesting a further reduction to four (4) spaces. Staff explained that if the width of the drive aisle was reduced from 24 ft. to 22 ft., the extra two (2) ft. could be added to the two north parking spaces eliminating the need for Variance #3. Staff noted that they had not received any correspondence in favor or opposition to the request. The applicant was not present. There being no one present to speak in favor of or opposition to the request, the public hearing was closed. The BZA concurred that the modification to the drive aisle width would be a minor change, but would result in a better project. A motion was made to recommend approval of Variances #1 and #2, and deny Variance #3. The motion passed by unanimous vote of all members present.