Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-17-04-022 — ARIEL MALAGON

Request: Variance in the R-CE zoning district to permit a cumulative total of 5,169 sq. ft. of accessory floor area in lieu of 2,000. (Note: The applicant states that the structures in question were in existence when the applicant purchased the property in October of 2016. This is a result of code enforcement action after numerous complaints regarding work being done without permits). APPROVAL DIFFERS FROM REQUEST. SEE CONDITIONS.

Decision: Approved

Hearing: Staff noted that this application was the result of code enforcement action. The applicant completed a significant amount of work on the structures without obtaining any permits. Code Enforcement staff had informed the applicant that they needed to stop work on the construction of a tiki hut and obtain variances and permits. However, the applicant completed the structure. Code Enforcement also cited the applicant for operating one or more businesses from the property which is contrary to both the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff outlined 3 possible courses of action the BZA could take, noting that staff recommends allowing an amount of accessory floor area equal to that of a free-standing garage which has existed on the site since the late 1980's and require all floor area in excess of that be removed. A representative of the Code Enforcement Division explained the chronology of events that took place since late last year when the applicant received the original citation notice for the work done without permits. They had documentation that one or more businesses were operating from the property and they advised the applicant to stop work. The applicant indicated the business has been removed from the property and they are willing to get permits for all unpermitted work. They also indicated that the realtor they had purchased the property from had told them that a business had existed on the property in the past and that it would be permissible to operate a commercial business from this property. No one was in attendance to speak in favor of the application. 4 nearby neighbors spoke in opposition to this request. They cited: constant problems with noise late at night; headlights shining into their widows during the night; constant partying during late night hours; and they had suspicions there may be one or more persons living in the converted garage. The applicant noted that the business is no longer on the prop. SEE FILE