Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-18-09-116 — PHYLLIS SMITH

Request: Variances in the R-1A zoning district as follows: 1) To permit two accessory structures to remain with a separation distance of 4 ft. in lieu of 10 ft. (APPROVED w/CONDITIONS) 2) To validate two existing sheds located 1 ft. off the rear (northerly) property line in lieu of 5 ft. (APPROVED w/CONDITIONS) 3) To validate 2 existing sheds located 40 ft. from the centerline of a major urban collector in lieu of 55 ft. (UNNECESSARY) Note: One of the structures is constructed completely of metal. The applicant hired a contractor to install the newer structure. The contractor was to have obtained the necessary permits, but failed to do so. This is the result of code enforcement action. A survey was provided, however, it was found to be in error.

Decision: Approved

Hearing: Staff explained the history of the subject property, including the platting of the subdivision in 1979, with a dedication of 30 ft. for Curry Ford Rd., and a subsequent condemnation proceeding with took an additional 15 ft. of all lots on the south side of Curry Ford Rd. This condemnation had actually been missed by the applicant's surveyor earlier this year when the original survey was submitted still showing the 15 ft. which had been condemned in 1982. As a result, not only are the applicant's sheds one (1) ft. off of the property line, but the fence, which had been properly permitted in 2015 based on an erred survey, was actually located two (2) ft. inside of the Curry Ford Rd. right-of-way. Since the condemnation had taken place long before the applicant purchased the property, they were unaware that their lot was shorter than their survey showed. Staff noted that it was recommending approval of Variance #1 and for that portion of Variance #2 dealing with the larger shed. The smaller shed should meet the setbacks. Variance #3 was not needed. The applicant noted that they had no idea until staff had her surveyor redo the survey that their lot was so much smaller. Further, they thought that the contractor would have taken care of the permits as the vendor had indicated. A representative of the Code Enforcement Division had nothing to add to the discussion. There being no one in attendance to speak for or against the request, the public hearing was closed. The BZA found that given the circumstances, the need for the requested variances was not self-imposed. Further, granting a variance for one shed and not the other made more sense. A motion to recommend all variances as advertised was passed by unanimous vote.