Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-20-09-089 — Cheryl Vanatti

Request: Variances in the A-2 zoning district as follows: 1) To allow an existing 489 sq. ft. accessory dwelling unit to be located in front of the primary dwelling in lieu of along side or behind. (Approved w/Conditions) 2) To allow an existing 240 sq. ft. accessory structure (carport) to be located in front of the primary dwelling in lieu of along side or behind. (Approved w/Conditions) 3) To allow a 1,720 sq. ft. pole barn to be located in front of the primary dwelling in lieu of along side or behind. (Approved w/Conditions) 4) To allow an existing 230 sq. ft. wood shed to remain 0.7 ft. from the side (west) property line in lieu of 5 ft. (Denied)

Decision: Denied

Hearing: SYNOPSIS: Staff briefly described the property, including the year the existing single-family residence was constructed as well as the approximate years that the accessory dwelling unit and the carport were installed. Staff indicated that the applicant's rationale for locating all the accessory structures, including the accessory dwelling unit, the carport, and the proposed pole barn were due to the presence of wetlands on the northern 2/3 of the property. Staff also pointed out the location of an existing pole barn that is located on the property line and an existing shed that is located 0.7 ft. from the property line. It was also noted that the location of the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) was closer to the front roadway than the previous single-family residence that was previously demolished. Staff described the location of the proposed accessory structures in comparison with the improvements on adjacent properties, and provided an analysis of the six (6) criteria and the reasons for a recommendation for denial of the variances. Staff noted that two (2) comment letters were received in support from two nearby neighbors and no comments were received in opposition. The applicant and the owner discussed the existing structures at the time of purchase, the need for variances, and emphasized that all the structures in the locations proposed are required in order to avoid the wetlands that dominate the site. There was no one in attendance to speak in favor or in opposition to the request. The BZA discussed the site improvements and the presence of wetlands on the site. The BZA had some concerns regarding the number of improvements on the site and the close proximity of the shed, with a setback less than 1 ft., which was requested as variance #4. The BZA questioned the applicant and owner and asked if they were willing to reduce the number of accessory structures on the site since the cumulative building area was approaching the 3,000 sq. ft. limit per code. The