Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-16-02-152 — VA-16-02-152

Request: Variances in the R-CE zoning district to construct a detached accessory building (garage) as follows: 1) In front of the principal structure; 2) 1,104 sq. ft. in size in lieu of 500 sq. ft.; and, 3) Validate an existing nonconforming residence located 3 feet from the side (north) property line in lieu of 10 ft. (Note: Two existing detached carports are currently located on the subject property with a combined size of 1,164 sq. ft. of covered area. These carports are to be demolished.)

Decision: Approved

Hearing: The applicant is requesting variances in the R-CE zoning district to construct a detached accessory building (garage): 1) In front of the principal structure; 2) 1,104 sq. ft. in size in lieu of 500 sq. ft.; and, 3) to validate an existing nonconforming residence located 3 feet from the side (north) property line in lieu of 10 ft. Two (2) existing detached carports are currently located on the subject property with a combined size of 1,164 sq. ft. of covered area. These carports are to be demolished. Staff explained that the subject property is a lakefront lot, and due to the location of the house, there is no room in the rear (lake side) of the lot to put a garage. The applicant has submitted a new site plan noting that the location for the garage had been located to the south side of the lot to preserve several existing trees. The applicant had also indicated a desire to move the garage further away from the road toward the house. Staff had no objections to doing either of these options. Staff recommended a change in the date of condition #1, from December 15, 2015 to February 29, 2016. The applicant showed the BZA several pictures depicting the existing vegetation, and noting that there is a very large amount of existing concrete and asphalt which they will also remove. There being no one in attendance to speak for or against the request, the public hearing was closed. The BZA found that the proposed request was not out of character with the neighborhood, and would not impose any negative impacts on the neighboring residents. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request with the amendment to condition #1. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.