Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-02-09-113 — Christopher Brazil

Request: Variances is R-1AA (single family-10,000 sq. ft. lots) zone to allow accessory building to remain as follows: 1. With 618 sq. ft. of area in lieu of 500 sq. ft.; 2. Less than 5 ft. from side (south) property line.

Decision: Denied

Hearing: The applicant has been the subject of several zoning violations starting in January of this year, including storage of construction materials, dual wheel vehicles, operation a business/conducting commercial activities on-site, and the subject accessory building on-site without a building permit and too close to the side property line. Currently, the accessory building is at the Code Enforcement Board level, pending resolution by the BZA. The applicant is on a reoccurring violation status regarding operating a business and conducting commercial activities on-site. The applicant stated he wanted to keep the existing accessory building on-site for storage, which he said was there when he bought the property, and add a covered area onto the front of it to store a recreational vehicle (RV port). Staff noted there was only 10-11 feet of space between the side property line and the side of the house, with a three-foot roof overhang into that area. This area appeared too narrow to allow driving the RV back to the proposed port. Further, the proposed location of the RV cannot meet the 10 foot setback requirement from the side lot line on the south. Two commentaries were received in favor and nine in opposition. Two neighboring property owners were present at the public hearing and spoke in opposition. The abutting property owner to the south presented photographs from her back yard showing the accessory building up against the common property line. She also showed several recent photographs depicting the applicant with his employees and business trucks in the front yard, which she said is a regular morning occurrence. The applicant has an asphalt and road striping business. The second opposer also complained about the commercial activities and the condition of the property. The BZA felt the property was too small to accommodate the applicant's proposed accessory building without infringing on the neighboring property owner, and further, that this request did n*