Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-20-02-158 — Kim Fischer

Request: Variances in the C-3 zoning district as follows:1) To allow for a lot split resulting in a 2.92 ft. north side setback in lieu of 5 ft. for existing Bldg. "G". 2) To allow for existing Bldg. "G" to remain with an 8.67 ft. west rear setback in lieu of 15 ft. 3) To allow for a lot split resulting in a 3.86 ft. north side setback in lieu of 5 ft. for existing Bldg. "F". 4) To allow for existing Bldg. "F" to remain with a 4.82 ft. north side setback in lieu of 5 ft. 5) To allow for existing Bldg. "H" to remain with a 10.04 ft. west rear setback lieu of 15 ft. 6) To allow for a lot split resulting in a 2.92 ft. north side setback in lieu of 5 ft. for existing Bldg. "D". 7) To allow for a 5 ft. south rear setback in lieu of 15 ft. for future buildings on proposed lot 3. (The BZA approved a 10 ft. south rear setback in lieu of 15 ft. for future buildings on proposed lot 3.) Variances in the I-4 zoning district as follows: 8) To allow for existing Bldg. "C" to remain with a 7.48 ft. south side setback in lieu of 25 ft. 9) To allow for existing Bldg. "C" to remain with a 9.85 ft. west rear setback in lieu of 10 ft. 10) To allow for existing Bldg. "C" to remain with an 11.88 ft. east side setback in lieu of 25 ft. 11) To allow for existing Bldg. "B" to remain with a 24 ft. north side setback in lieu of 25 ft. Variance in the C-1 zoning district as follows:

Decision: Approved

Hearing: SYNOPSIS: Staff gave a presentation on the case covering the location of the property, the site plan, development proposal, and photos of the site. The applicant stated that they had wanted to use the zoning line for the new property line, and that they had modified Lot 3 to have the same setback as the existing lot and lot 2. The BZA questioned the 5 foot rear setback request for the proposed new lots, when 10 feet was previously proposed. The BZA discussed whether the 5 foot setback would set a precedent to allow for other variances on vacant lots without any documents or plans being submitted to back such requests for new lots. The BZA felt that the lot is unique, and they want to be consistent with existing building setbacks, and want to make a reasonable compromise for development. The BZA felt that a 10 foot rear setback request was more reasonable than 5 feet. Staff received no correspondence in favor or in opposition to the application. There being no one present to speak in favor or opposition to the request, the public hearing was closed. The BZA recommended approval of the requested variances, subject to a modified approval for request # 7, granting a 10 ft. south rear setback in lieu of 15 ft. for future buildings on proposed lot 3, and subject to a modified approval for request # 12, granting a 10 ft. south rear setback in lieu of 20 ft. for future buildings on proposed lot 2. The motion passed with a 3-2 vote, subject to the four (4) conditions found in the staff report.