Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-20-02-154 — Arnold Olson

Request: Variances in the R-1 zoning district as follows: 1) To allow an existing accessory structure over 15 ft. in height to remain 5 ft. from the rear (south) property line in lieu of 10 ft. 2) To allow an accessory structure with more than 150 sq. ft. of floor area and which is greater than 10 ft. in height to be constructed of materials not commonly used throughout Orange County for single-family residential construction, such as stucco, brick, vinyl, aluminum or wood for the siding or walls; and shingles, tiles or corrugated metal for the roof. Note: This is the result of a Code Enforcement action.

Decision: Approved

Hearing: Staff noted that the garage first appeared in the 2019 aerial, which meant that it was constructed in either late 2018, or early 2019. There are no special condition or circumstances particular to this property. It could have been installed to meet code. With regard to the exterior finish of the structure, staff noted that the code required that any accessory structure over 10 ft. in height, or with more than 150 sq. ft. of floor area to be finished with materials commonly used on residential homes, such as stucco, vinyl siding, brick, etc. Staff noted that it had not received any correspondence regarding this application. The applicant indicated that they had hired the contractor to construct the building, but they paid the manufacturer directly for the building. They assumed that all permits had been obtain, however, due to an illness and ultimate death of their mother, they were not in state when the building was actually erected. They were not aware that permits had not been applied for until September of 2019 when a code enforcement office cited them for construction of the garage without permits. In reviewing the exterior of the building they did find that the colors complimented the applicant's residence. They asked the applicant if they would consider putting some type of finish on the structure, such as stucco. The applicant indicated that they were not financially capable of doing so. With no one in the audience to speak in favor or opposition to the request, the public hearing was closed. The BZA unanimously recommended approval of Variances #1 and #2, subject to the five (5) conditions found in the staff report.