Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

VA-23-08-052 — Asima Azam

Request: BOARD-CALLED ON 8/22/23 Variances in the R-1A zoning district as follows: 1) To allow an existing detached accessory structure (carport) in front of the principal structure in lieu of the rear or side. 2) To allow a south front setback of 6 ft. in lieu of 25 ft. for an existing detached accessory structure (carport). 3) To allow a 6 ft. high fence within the clear view triangle. 4) To allow an 8.55 ft. high gate within the clear view triangle. Note: This is the result of Code Enforcement.

Decision: Approved

Hearing: SYNOPSIS: Staff described the proposal, including the location of the property, the site plan, and photos of the site. Staff provided an analysis of the six (6) criteria and the reasons for a recommendation for approval. Staff noted that four (4) comments were received in support, and five (5) comments were received in opposition. The applicant stated that the owners purchased the property 30 years ago, and built the fence and carport between 1995 and 1998 and they believed that permits were not required at that time. They contend that the carport and the front yard is not an adverse impact, only an aesthetic impact and it would be a significant cost to remove the driveway, and noted that the septic is in the backyard. The applicant also felt that the fence was built prior to code and noted that pedestrians do not frequent the area and there have been no instances in 30 years. The BZA noted that the property is constrained due to the septic in the rear, but expressed concern for the clear view triangle safety issues. Code Enforcement confirmed that the citation was in response to a citizens complaint, and permits were required when these items were built, and that the item has gone to the Code Enforcement Board and there is a lien on the property. There was no one in attendance to speak in favor or in opposition to the request. The BZA made a motion to approve Variances #1, and #2, and to deny Variance #3, and #4, which failed by a vote of 2-3. A second motion was made to recommend approval of the requested Variances, which passed with a 3-2 vote, with one absent and one vacant, subject to the five (5) conditions found in the staff report and the addition of condition 6 stating, "The gate shall be transparent."