Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-18-05-038 — RYAN SEADER

Request: Variances in the R-1A zoning district as follows: 1) To allow an accessory structure (carport) in front of the principal structure. (APPROVED w/CONDITIONS 2) To allow a two-story accessory structure in lieu of one story. (DENIED) 3) To allow an accessory structure 24 ft. in height in lieu of 20 ft. (DENIED) 4) To allow an accessory structure 1 ft. from the side (east) property line in lie of 5 ft. (APPROVED w/CONDITIONS) 5) To allow an accessory structure to be located 20 ft. from the front (south) property line in lieu of 25 ft. (APPROVED w/CONDITIONS) 6) To allow additional construction on a lot with 6,750 sq. ft. of lot area in lieu of 7,500 sq. ft. (APPROVED w/CONDITIONS) 7) To allow additional construction on a lot with 50 ft. of frontage in lieu of 75 ft. (APPROVED w/CONDITIONS) 8) To validate an existing residence with a side (west) setback of 4 ft. in lieu of 7.5 ft. (APPROVED w/CONDITIONS) 9) To validate an existing residence with a side (east) setback of 7 ft. in lieu of 7.5 ft. (APPROVED w/CONDITIONS)

Decision: Partial Approval

Hearing: Staff gave a brief overview of the case and stated that applicant built the carport without permits. When the owner bought the property the house and carport were existing, however the carport was destroyed by the recent storms. When the applicant built the new carport he was cited by code enforcement. Staff explained that variances #1 through #5 are for the carport, and variances #6 through #9 are for the house. Staff also noted that the side setback for the carport is actually 3.5 ft. and not 1 ft. Staff recommended approval of variances #1 and #4 through #9 as they met the variance criteria. Staff recommended denial of variances #2 and #3 as the second story deck was a visual nuisance in the front yard. The applicant stated they built the carport where the previous one was located and wanted the second floor deck to be able to relax outside. No one spoke in favor or in opposition of the request. Staff received three letters in favor and one letter in opposition. The BZA discussed the variances and agreed that the second floor deck was not necessary. The BZA approved variances #1,#4 through #9 and denied variances #2 and #3.