Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-20-12-109 — Julian Ramirez, Iris Soto (Cristine Rosenhaim)

Request: Variances for the construction of a 3,041 sq. ft. single-family residence in the A-1 zoning district as follows: 1) 8,100 sq. ft. lot area in lieu of 21,780 sq. ft. (1/2 acre) 2) To allow a north rear setback of 22.5 ft. in lieu of 50 ft.

Decision: Approved

Hearing: SYNOPSIS: Staff described the applicant's proposal for the subject property, including the site plan and the requested square footage of the proposed one-story home. Staff explained the plat history and the lot sizes, the zoning in place at the time of recordation, and the history of approved variances within the surrounding subdivision pertaining to setbacks and lot sizes. Staff noted that there had been no correspondence in favor or opposition received for this request. Staff reviewed the six (6) criteria and the reasons for the recommendation for approval of variance #1 since the owner is not responsible for the platting of the lot, nor the Zoning District, and denial of variance #2 since this is new construction and there are alternatives pertaining to the location, size, and the number of stories of the new house respective to the rear property line. The agent for the applicant explained the reasons for the setback request which is necessitated by the need for a one-story house. There was no one present to speak in favor or opposition to the request. The BZA concluded that there were sufficient criteria to justify approval of the variances in that the special conditions and circumstances and recording the subdivision with non-conforming lots deprived the applicant the full use of the property; the applicant is not responsible for the current configuration of the lot because the platting created the non-conformity; there is no special privilege conferred in that the county set a precedent by approving 3 variances for the reduction of rear setbacks, one being 22.99 feet; without the approval of variance #2, the applicant would be deprived of the right to construct the desired home; the non-conforming lot size was established by the plat and therefore variance #2 would be the minimum variance required to construct the applicant¿s home; and the purpose and intent of the approval of variance #2 would be consistent with prior approved variances for front, side an