ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 2015

Transcription

1 ORANGE COUNTY MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 2015 The Orange County Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting met at 9:00 a.m. on January 9, 2015 in the Orange County Commission Chambers on the 1st Floor of the Orange County Administration Building, 201 South Rosalind Avenue, Orlando, Florida BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Zachary Seybold- Acting Chairman Carolyn Karraker Gregory A. Jackson Tony Rey Eugene Roberson, Jr. Gabriela Ortigoni Vacant, District #4 STAFF PRESENT: Rocco Relvini, AICP, Chief Planner, Zoning Division Nicholas Balevich, Development Coordinator, Zoning Division David Nearing, AICP, Development Coordinator, Zoning Division Debra Phelps, Recording Secretary, FOS Division The Acting Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:04a.m. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the following applications, as advertised, were called up for public hearing. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Board member Tony Rey nominated Zachary Seybold for Chairman. A motion was made by Tony Rey, seconded by Gabriela Ortigoni, and unanimously carried to APPOINT Zachary Seybold for Chairman of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Board member Zachary Seybold nominated Tony Rey for Vice Chairman. A motion was made by Zachary Seybold, seconded by Gabriela Ortigoni, and unanimously carried to APPOINT Tony Rey for Vice Chairman of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Chairman requested a motion approving the minutes of the December 4, 2014, Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting. A motion was made by Tony Rey, seconded by Gabriela Ortigoni, and unanimously carried to APPROVE the minutes of the December 4, 2014, Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting. MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

2 Agenda requests will read as follows: SHERRI FRAGOMENI, P.E., AGENT FOR TURKEY LAKE POINTE- SE REQUEST: ADDRESS: LOCATION: S-T-R: TRACT SIZE: DISTRICT#: LEGAL: PARCEL ID: Special Exception in the C-1 zoning district to permit a commercial structure in excess of 35 ft. in height within 100 ft. of residentially zoned property to the west (used as an OUC water plant). (Note: The request is to permit a 42 ft. high three-story building with architectural features extending to 57 ft. in height. This is the same plan that was submitted and shown at previous community meetings. The applicant did not realize a variance was required during the rezoning process) Turkey Lake Rd., 6760 Turkey Lake Rd., 6758 Turkey Lake Rd., 6762 Turkey Lake Rd. West side of Turkey Lake Rd., approximately 100 ft. north of Wallace Rd Acres 1 N 150FT OF S FT OF E 210FT OF NE1/4 OF NE1/4 (LESS E 30FT FOR RD) OF SEC ; ; ; Chief Planner Rocco Relvini explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Relvini gave a brief presentation and indicated that the project was called Turkey Lake Pointe. The applicant amended the Future Land Use Map and rezoned the land to C-1 as approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on July 8, Mr. Relvini advised that the special exception request site plan was the very same site plan that had been reviewed by the BCC and the affected surrounding residents and property owners. However, the applicant was not aware that a special exception was required because the proposed building height was too close to the residential zoning to the west. Although, zoned single family residential, the adjacent parcel was used as an OUC water treatment plant. The regulation did not aim to protect industrial uses from 3 story office/retail buildings. Mr. Relvini stated staff did not object to this request since the same building design had been previously approved by the BCC. Further, this same building height and setbacks were shown to the attendees at the previous community meetings during the aforementioned rezoning hearings. Staff received one (1) commentary in opposition to the request. Mr. Relvini stated staff's recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report. John Michelena, 299 Loraine Drive, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, architect on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Board and agreed with staff's recommendation. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request. The BZA discussed the case and concluded that this was a prime example of a valid special exception request and approved the request with staff's recommendation. A motion was made by Carolyn Karraker, seconded by Tony Rey and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Special Exception request in that the Board finds it met the MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

3 requirements governing Special Exceptions as spelled out in Orange County Code, Section 38-78, and that the granting of the Special Exception does not adversely affect general public interest; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan submitted with the application and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; 2. Pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes, issuance of this development permit by the County does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; and, 3. Construction plans shall be submitted for permitting within three (3) years or this approval becomes null and void. H.E.L.P. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. - VA REQUEST: ADDRESS: LOCATION: S-T-R: Variances in the R-2 zoning district to allow substandard size duplex and detached garage to remain as follows: 1) Lot width of ft. in lieu of 80ft.; 2) Lot area of 6,749 sq. ft. in lieu of 8,000 sq. ft. ; 3) Side setback of 3.8 ft. in lieu of 5 ft. for principal structure; 4) Side setback of 2.5 ft. in lieu of 5 ft. for accessory structure (detached garage); and, 5) Living area of 796 sq. ft. per unit in lieu of 800 sq. ft th St. South side of 18th Street, 400 ft. west of S. Westmoreland Drive TRACT SIZE: ft. X ft. DISTRICT#: 6 LEGAL: ANGEBIL T ADDITION H/79 LOT 9 BLK 8 PARCEL ID: Development Coordinator David Nearing explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Nearing presented an overview of the case and outlined that the ANGEBIL T ADDITION subdivision was platted on June 15, The subject property had been in its current configuration since its creation. Mr. Nearing stated the Property Appraiser's records reflected that the current structure was built in 1953, five (5) years before zoning was established in Orange County and identified as a "duplex." Permit records did not indicate that there had ever been any interior alterations to convert the unit from a single family unit to a duplex. Mr. Nearing noted the intent of this application was to validate the existing duplex on a substandard lot to formally grandfather the use. MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

4 The current owner, a philanthropic organization, purchased the unit 'as is' in The Property Appraiser's records indicate that the total living area of the duplex was 1,592 square feet. The minimum square footage for each unit in a duplex was 500 square feet; and, as such, the current structure would meet this requirement. It was noted by Mr. Nearing that the variance request regarding minimum dwelling size was applied in error; thus, no action was required. Mr. Nearing reported that according to the Orange County Comprehensive Policy Plan, the underlying Future Land Use for the property was NR, Neighborhood Residential, which has a density of twenty (20) units per acre. The Plan clearly anticipated higher density development in this area, which would support lots smaller than to be found in a standard zoning district such as R-2. Research showed that numerous properties in the general area of the subject property were granted variances to construct a duplex or convert existing units to duplexes on substandard lots, thus establishing a pattern and character of development specific to this area. Failure to grant the requested variances may actually deprive the applicant of rights which were commonly granted to others in this area. Further, the requested variances were to validate an existing structures location and lot size to be the minimum necessary. Mr. Nearing indicated that because the property and structure were both created prior to the establishment of zoning in Orange County, the purpose for the variance was to formally grandfather the use, which had been vacant for more than 180 days. Approval of the requested variances would not impair the integrity of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Each unit in the duplex would, in fact, meet the minimum size required in the R-2 zoning district. Staff summarized that the the County had invested a significant amount in upgrading the infrastructure in the area to encourage redevelopment. As such, smaller more dense development should be encouraged in this area. Staff further noted that because the duplex predated zoning, the setbacks and other requirements did not exist. Mr. Nearing stated staff received one (1) commentary in favor and none in opposition to the request. Based on the foregoing findings, staff advised that should the BZA recommend approval, the conditions in the staff report should be imposed. Earl Savage, th Street, Orlando, Florida 32805, project manager on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Board and indicated that he was in agreement with the staffs recommendation to include the proposed conditions. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request. The Board discussed the case and concurred that the fact in which the unit had predated zoning meant this was not a self-imposed hardship, and that validating the unit as a lawful use was warranted. The BZA concurred with staffs recommendation for approval of the first four ( 4) variances, with no action being needed on the minimum. floor area request. A motion was made by Eugene Roberson Jr, seconded by Carolyn Karraker and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Variance Requests #1, #2, #3, and #4, in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

5 have been met; and to deem Variance Request #5 as UNNECESSARY; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan dated November 11, 2014, and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; and, 3. Prior to issuance of the first CO, two additional paved parking spaces shall be added to the site. All parking spaces shall be situated to permit unimpaired ingress/egress. WINZEL AND WARRAND ANDERSON- SE REQUEST: ADDRESS: LOCATION: S-T-R: Special Exception in R-1 zoning district to allow detached guest house to remain as follows: 1) 2ft. from side (east) property line in lieu of 5 ft.; and, 2) 3.4 ft. from the rear (south) property line in lieu of 5 ft. (Note: This is a result of code enforcement action. The property owner has agreed to remove the kitchen. Removal of the kitchen means this structure is a guest house) W Robinson St. South side ofw. Robinson St., 500ft. east of N. Powers Dr TRACT SIZE: 65 ft. X 103 ft. DISTRICT#: 6 LEGAL: AVONDALE ADDITION N/54 THE E 10 FT LOT 6 ALL LOTS 5 & 4 & W 5 FT LOT 3 BLK4 PARCEL ID: Chief Planner Rocco Relvini explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Relvini gave a brief presentation and indicated the applicant was ninety-one (91) years old who was cited by the Code Enforcement Division for having a separate dwelling unit in the rear yard without zoning approval. The property owner purchased the property with the dwelling units on the property 'as is.' Staff advised the applicant to remove the kitchen and use the structure as a guest house. However, the proposed guest house did not meet the rear or east side property line setback of five (5) feet. Additionally, there was a block wall along the south property line. Mr. Relvini stated the property owner did not create the hardship. MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

6 Mr. Relvini advised that one option was to deny the request and expect the property owner to relocate the structure which was not a practical solution. Instead, perhaps the property owner could erect a six (6) foot PVC fence along the east property line. Staff advised the BZA that if the applicant removed the kitchen, then this unit would be a guest house. Mr. Relvini noted the most impacted property owner to the east submitted a letter of no objection; and further, stated staff received one (1) commentary in favor and one (1) commentary in opposition of the request. Mr. Relvini stated staff recommended approval of the request subject to the conditions as set forth in the staff report. Warren Anderson, 6124 W. Robenson, Orlando, Florida 32825, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that the dwelling unit was existing when he purchased the property. Mr. Anderson agreed with staffs recommendation to include removal of the kitchen. Sam Cort, 1921 North Street, Longwood, Florida 32750, general contractor on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Board in support to the request. No one spoke in opposition to the request. The BZA discussed the case and concurred with staffs recommendation to include adding condition #6, addressing that the unit could not be rented out but for the use of family members and guests only. A motion was made by Eugene Roberson Jr, seconded by Carolyn Karraker and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Special Exception requests in that the Board finds it met the requirements governing Special Exceptions as spelled out in Orange County Code, Section 38-78, and that the granting of the Special Exception does not adversely affect general public interest; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan submitted by the applicant and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; 3. A 6 ft. pvc fence shall be erected along the east property line; 4. The property owner shall remove the kitchen from the detached guest house; 5. Permits shall be obtained with 180 days or this approval becomes null and void; and, 6. The guest house shall not be rented out and shall be used by family members and MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

7 property owner's guests. JOE THOMPSON- VA REQUEST: Variance in R-1AA zoning district to construct addition (garage) to single family residence 15ft. from rear property line in lieu of 30ft. ADDRESS: LOCATION: 6905 W Livingston St. North side of W. Livingston Street, east of N. Hiawassee Rd., south of SR 408 S-T-R: TRACT SIZE: 220ft. x 134ft. DISTRICT#: 6 LEGAL: W1/2 OF E2/3 OF S1/2 OF S1/2 OF NW1/4 OF SW1/4 OF NW1/4 (LESS S 30 FT FOR RD) OF SEC PARCEL ID: Development Coordinator Nicholas Balevich explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Balevich indicated the applicant was requesting a variance to allow a setback of fifteen (15) feet from rear property line in lieu of thirty (30) feet, for purposes of constructing an addition for a garage to a single family residence. Mr. Balevich described the property as shallow in relation to the width, leaving less available depth in the rear yard. Further, Mr. Balevich clarified if the proposed garage was detached, then the addition could be five (5) feet from the rear and side property lines. In addition, approval of the variance would not adversely affect any surrounding property owners. Staff received three (3) commentaries in favor to include letters provided by neighbors and one (1) commentary in opposition of the request. Staff had no objections because: approval of this request did not violate the public's best interests. Mr. Balevich stated that if the BZA approved the request, staff recommended to impose the conditions as outlined in the staff report: Joe Thompson, 3500 N. Westmoreland Drive, Orlando, Florida 32804, applicant, addressed the Board explaining how the architectural design was a more appealing view from the street and functional behind the house. Mr. Thompson further agreed with staff's recommendation. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the request. The BZA inquired about the existing front setback and the dimensions of the addition. The BZA discussed locating the garage on the side of the house, but agreed with the applicant that the proposed location in the rear was more aesthetically pleasing, as it was out of sight and had less of a visual impact. recommendation. Therefore, the BZA concurred with staff's A motion was made by Eugene Roberson Jr., seconded by Gregory A. Jackson and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Variance request in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan dated "Received November 11, 2014" and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

8 changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; and, 3. The addition shall have similar colors and design materials as the primary residence. Recessed at 9:59a.m. and reconvened at 10:05 a.m. GAYLE L SEIDELMAN- VA REQUEST: ADDRESS: LOCATION: S-T-R: TRACT SIZE: DISTRICT#: LEGAL: Variances in the R-CE zoning district to construct single family residence as follows: 1) Reduce the minimum lot area from 1 acre to.51 acres: and, 2) Reduce the minimum lot frontage from 130 ft. to 90 ft. Lake Ola Cir. North side of Lake Ola, south side of Lake Ola Cir ft. X 244 ft. 2 TANGERINE TERRACE ON LAKE OLA N/44 LOT 5 BLK 7 & W 30FT OF VAC ST ON E & THAT PART OF VAC PARK ON S THEREOF PARCEL ID: Development Coordinator David Nearing explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Nearing presented an overview of the case and outlined that the subject property was Lot 5, Block 7 of the Tangerine Terrace subdivision, platted in 1927, plus onehalf (1/2) of the right-of-way (r-o-w), and a portion of a park abandoned by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) in Mr. Nearing noted that the subject property was, in fact, a lot of record which lost its lawful nonconforming lot of record status when added to the property to the west. The applicant's proposal was to construct a home which would meet all setbacks required by the R-CE zoning district. Mr. Nearing reported that the applicant purchased the property in 2013 from a bank after the property had been lost in foreclosure. The subject property was located within an enclave of twenty-one (21) lots with a Future Land Use Designation (FLUD) of LOR, Low Density Residential, which permited a maximum density of four units per acre. All of the land surrounding this enclave had a FLUD of R 1/1, Rural Land Use with a maximum density of one (1) unit per acre. Within the LOR enclave, nineteen (19) of the twenty-one (21) lots were less than one (1) acre in size; specifically, between twenty-nine percent (29%) to thirty-five percent (35%) of the lots fronting on Lake Ola were less than one (1) acre. In addition, a large number of the lots had a lot width of less than 130 feet. MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

9 Moreover, the subject property was actually larger than fifty-two percent (52%) of the lots in this enclave, all of which, but for two, were developed with a home. The smallest lot in the LOR enclave was.21 acres in size, with fifty-six (56) feet of frontage. This was Lot 4, Block 5 of the Tangerine Terrace Subdivision in the same configuration as when originally patted. Further, Mr. Nearing advised that Policy FLU6.2.2 of the Orange County Comprehensive Policy Plan states: "Every effort shall be made to preserve the existing character of the Tangerine, Clarcona, Christmas, Zellwood, and Gotha rural settlements as part of Orange County's heritage and historic preservation. Rural Settlements may be designated as Preservation Districts for the purposes of municipal annexation pursuant to the Orange County Charter, Article V. (Added 12/00, Ord , Policy r)". Thus, the granting of this variance would not diminish the integrity of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, Mr. Nearing indicated that in 2006, the owner of a lot to the east was granted a variance to build on a substandard lot size of.61 acre zoned R-CE. Later that year, the County initiated rezoning which was approved by the BCC to rezone that property to R- 1AAAA, making the lot conforming with the zoning. Given the underlying land use of the area, the applicant could pursue a similar rezoning; however, comments by neighbors indicate that they would prefer a variance to be approved over a change in the zoning. It was also noted by Mr. Nearing that since the applicant would be meeting the required setbacks for the R-CE zoning district, a variance from the lot size and width were the minimum variances needed. Staff received two (2) commentaries in favor and four (4) commentaries in opposition of the request. Mr. Nearing stated that should the BZA approve the variances, staff recommended imposing the conditions as listed in the staff report. Gayle Seidelman, Orange Street, Sorrento, Florida 32776, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that she was attempting to make the lot buildable to construct a retirement home and expressed at the time of purchase she was not aware that the lot was unbuildable and needed a variance. Ms. Seidelman agreed with the staff recommendation. Theresa Henns, Elk Joanna Drive, Eustis, Florida 32736, previous property owner, addressed the Board and explained how Lot #3 and Lot #4, were combined as one lot; and Lot #5 remained a separate lot; and additionally, provided supporting documentation along with Orange County letters dated December 5, 2005 and April 17, 2006, which was reflected into the record. Henry Wiland, 7770 Lake Ola Drive, Tangerine, Florida 32777, resident, addressed the Board in support of the request. Heather Baker, 7426 Lake Ola Circle, Mt. Dora, Florida 34757, neighbor in opposition, addressed the Board stating the applicant was aware of the need for a variance before purchasing the property because of property disclosures as well as the Orange County Property Appraiser's website. Ms. Baker expressed their concern of a negative impact the variance would have on decreasing their property values in this rural country style living area and their expectation of privacy being compromised with how close the proposed MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

10 house would be built to the property line. Ms. Baker stated that the subject property was purchased for a significantly small fraction of the cost than other properties in the neighborhood because of the fact that the subject lot was unbuildable. Ms. Baker indicated the applicant was a real estate investor as they owned other lakefront property, and was attempting to take advance of the opportunity to make a big profit on the subject property. Ned Bowers, 7400 Lake Ola Circle, Mt. Dora, Florida 32757, neighbor in opposition, addressed the Board stating the applicant did not meet the variance criteria as it was selfcreated since the purchase of the subject property was after the lot was cut in half; plus, the lot was not in harmony with the surrounding area, and, added that no other new houses had been built after the new zoning code. Mr. Bowers further stated that there was no infrastructure to support the proposed use, and that the applicant should have done their due diligence prior to the purchase of the subject property. Ms. Seidelman addressed the BZA in rebuttal and denied having any knowledge of the required variance to build a house prior to the purchase of the subject property. Ms. Seidelman denied being a real estate investor stating they owned another lakefront property where they currently reside. Ms. Seidelman explained that she and her husband decided to hire an attorney after presenting two (2) offers for the listed purchase price on the subject property of which both had been rejected by the seller's agent. Ms. Seidelman stated that the purchase price of the property was continuously reduced until their last offer was accepted through the use of an attorney. Ms. Seidelman noted that other properties on Lake Ola Circle were smaller than an acre, including the properties of the two (2) neighbors who spoke in opposition. The BZA noted the complexity of the case. However, some of the BZA determined that there were many properties on the lake less than one (1) acre in size. The BZA asked the applicant if she would consider moving the home away from the west property line to give the neighbors a twenty (20) foot separation, in which she agreed. Another BZA member determined that this request did not reflect the intent of the R-CE zoning. As such, the majority of the BZA concurred with staffs recommendation with an added condition that the applicant would set the house back far enough to maintain a twenty (20) foot separation from the house to the west. A motion was made by Gregory A. Jackson, seconded by Carolyn Karraker, Zachary Seybold, Gabriela Ortigoni, Tony Rey voting AYE by voice vote, and Eugene Roberson voting No by voice vote, and carried to APPROVE the Variance requests in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan dated November 13, 2014, and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

11 obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; 3. Approval of this request does not constitute approval of the use of septic tanks and wells. The use of septic tanks and wells shall be in accordance with all applicable regulations; and, 4. The home shall be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the west property line. CHERYL L WATSON- VA REQUEST: Variance in the R-1A zoning district to allow existing 909 sq. ft accessory building (storage shed) to remain, for a cumulative accessory building total of 958 sq. ft. in lieu of 500 sq. ft. (Note: This is the result of code enforcement action.) ADDRESS: 3116 Bon Air Dr. LOCATION: West side of Bon Air Dr., east of N. Apopka Vineland Rd., approximately 1/2 mile north of Silver Star Rd. S-T-R: TRACT SIZE: 75ft. x 137ft. DISTRICT#: 6 LEGAL: SILVER STAR ESTATES X/1 08 LOT 4 BLK A PARCEL ID: Development Coordinator Nicholas Balevich explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Balevich indicated the applicant was requesting a variance to allow an existing 909 square foot accessory building used for a storage shed to remain, and for a cumulative accessory building total of 958 square feet in lieu of 500 square feet. applicant was cited by Code Enforcement for having an unpermitted structure. applicant stated that the shed was on the property upon its purchase thereof. Mr. Balevich indicated that Pinewood Elementary School was to the rear of the property, and was not negatively affected. Staff had received letters of no objection to the request from the most impacted adjacent neighbors. Further, Mr. Balevich advised that approval of the variance would not adversely affect any surrounding property owners as no privacy rights were being affected; and, stated approval of the request did not violate the public's best interests. The The Staff received two (2) commentaries in favor and none in opposition to the request. Mr. Balevich stated if the BZA approves of the request, the conditions as outlined in the staff report should be imposed. Cheryl Watson, 545 Forest Lake Drive, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, applicant, addressed the Board stating the shed had existed at the time of purchasing the house; and thereafter, when repairing the storage unit for wood rot, they had discovered no permits were issued for the original installation of the shed. Ms. Watson further stated that an MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

12 architect was hired to create as-built drawings. recommendation. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the request. Ms. Watson agreed with staff's Responding to the BZA inquiries, the applicant stated that the house was formerly a rental, but was now occupied by her brother who acts as a caretaker, and the accessory building was used for family storage of appliances, tools, and a boat. The BZA noted that there were no setback issues, but expressed concerns over the amount of variance requested; however, the BZA agreed that this was mitigated by the fact that the shed was existing when the applicant purchased the property, that both neighbors commented in favor, and the accessory structure backed up to a school property. Based on the this information, the BZA concurred with staff's recommendation. A motion was made by Eugene Roberson Jr, seconded by Gregory A. Jackson and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Variance request in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan dated "Received November 1, 2014 "and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; and, 3. The applicant shall obtain all required permits within 180 days, or this approval becomes null and void. JESUS ANDERSON- VA REQUEST: Variance in P-D zoning district to convert existing lanai into an enclosed room 15 ft. from rear property line in lieu of 25ft. ADDRESS: 7423 Elsworth Ct. LOCATION: East side of Elsworth Ct., south ofwoodgreen Dr., east of Dr. Phillips Blvd. S-T -R: TRACT SIZE: 111 ft. x 127ft. (irregular shaped) DISTRICT#: 1 LEGAL: ORANGE TREE COUNTRY CLUB UT 3 13/44 LOT 108 BLK F PARCEL ID: Development Coordinator Nicholas Balevich explained the location of the subject property MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

13 and the request. Mr. Balevich indicated the applicant was requesting a variance to allow a rear setback of fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line in lieu of twenty-five (25) feet, for purposes of converting an existing lanai into an enclosed room. The lot had a pie shape and was narrower at the rear, which placed a unique burden on this property for setbacks. Mr. Balevich advised that this was the minimum variance possible under the circumstances as the applicant was not proposing any construction beyond the existing walls or roofline. Furthermore, Mr. Balevich stated that approval of the variance would not adversely affect any of the surrounding properties; and, explained that the existing setback would remain the same, with the only change being to the type of wall. Staff received a letter of no objection from the Homeowners Association along with three (3) commentaries in favor and none in opposition to the request. Mr. Balevich stated should the BZA approve of the request, the conditions as listed in the staff report should be imposed. Cristel Rosas-Anderson, 7423 Elsworth Court, Orlando, Florida 32819, contractor on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Board stating he had no further comments and agreed with the staffs recommendation. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request. The BZA stated that the request was straightforward and no special privileges were being given due to the shape of the lot. Further, the BZA commented that the neighbors would be further buffered by replacing an existing screen with a solid wall ; and, stated the variance was as minimal as necessary. recommendation. Therefore, the BZA concurred with staffs A motion was made by Carolyn Karraker, seconded by Gregory A. Jackson and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Variance request in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan dated "Received November 18, 2014" and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; and, 3. The enclosed room shall have similar colors and design materials as the primary MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

14 residence. JASON AND HEATHER COONS- SE REQUEST: Special Exception in the R-1AA zoning district to construct a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) for property owner's mother and the following Variances: 1) To locate ADU in front yard of double frontage lot; 2) To allow ADU 21 ft. from front property line (Woodlawn Dr. is second front yard) in lieu of 30ft.; and, 3) To allow driveway in front yard to access ADU. ADDRESS: 1845 Oak Ln. LOCATION: East side of Oak Ln., between Oak Ln. and Woodlawn Dr., approximately 200 ft. north of Corrine Dr. S-T-R: TRACT SIZE: 100ft. x 216ft. DISTRICT#: 5 LEGAL: LAKE SUE PARK DB 882/538 LOT 57 & E1/2 OF ST ON W PARCEL ID: Development Coordinator David Nearing explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Nearing presented an overview of the case and outlined that the applicants were requesting a Special Exception for a detached ADU to move their mother into an independent living arrangement with immediate access. The applicants owned a double frontage lot with the primary access off of Oak Lane, and the rear yard abutting Woodlawn Drive. Further, the applicant's current site plan depicted the accessory dwelling unit as being only twenty-one (21) feet from Woodlawn Dr. Mr. Nearing noted that the existing wall would provide a visual buffer. In addition, the yard adjacent to Woodlawn Drive functioned as a rear yard which was where the proposed ADU would be located, and would be slightly larger than a typical 1-car garage; thus, making the ADU appear normal. It was also reported by Mr. Nearing that the staff report noted there was a six (6) foot tall concrete block wall along the Woodlawn Drive property line. There was actually a wooden fence, as such, the vehicle associated with the ADU would access through a gate in the fence. Mr. Nearing pointed out that there have been numerous variances in this neighborhood for rear yard setbacks, establishing a pattern. Staff received letters of support from five (5) of the most impacted neighbors along with several others in favor of the request. One (1) neighbor was in opposition, but does not abut to the subject property. Mr. Nearing stated staffs recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions as set forth in the staff report. Heather Coons, 1845 Oak Lane, Orlando, Florida 32803, applicant addressed the Board and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation and the conditions as proposed. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request. The BZA asked why the applicant did not move the ADU closer to the existing home to reduce the size of the variance. The applicant explained that they would like to preserve a functional rear yard, perhaps for a future pool. The BZA found that the request was MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

15 reasonable and met the criteria for a Special Exception, and that there were other variances granted in the neighborhood to help substantiate the request. Finally, the BZA concurred with staff's recommendation. A motion was made by Zachary Seybold, seconded by Tony Rey and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Special Exception request in that the Board finds it met the requirements governing Special Exceptions as spelled out in Orange County Code, Section 38-78, and, to APPROVE the Variance requests in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The ADU shall be developed in compliance with the site plan dated November 19, Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; 3. The accessory dwelling unit shall be used by family members only and shall not be rented out; 4. Approval of this request does not constitute approval of the use of septic tanks and wells. The use of septic tanks and wells shall be in accordance with all applicable regulations; 5. The applicant shall obtain a permit for the Accessory Dwelling within three (3) years of the final County approval or this approval becomes null and void; and, 6. The exterior finish of the accessory dwelling shall be compatible or complimentary to that of the principal structure. DONALD CORTHELL- VA REQUEST: Variances in the R-2 zoning district to construct duplex on substandard lot as follows: 1) 50 ft. lot width in lieu of 80ft., and, 2) 6, 750 sq. ft. lot size in lieu of 8,000 sq. ft. (Note: The applicant intends to demolish existing duplex and reconstruct duplex on same footprint) ADDRESS: 1001 W Kaley Ave. LOCATION: Northwest corner of S. Westmoreland Dr. and W. Kaley Ave., east of S. Orange Blossom Tr. S-T -R: TRACT SIZE: 50 ft. x 135ft. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS1MENT MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

16 DISTRICT#: 6 LEGAL: ANGEBILT ADDITION H/79 LOT 24 BLK 18 PARCEL ID: Development Coordinator Nicholas Balevich explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Balevich indicated the applicant was requesting variances to allow a fifty (50) foot lot width in lieu of eighty (80) feet, and a 6,750 square foot lot size in lieu of 8,000 square feet. The applicant's intent was to demolish the existing duplex on the property and reconstruct a new duplex with the same footprint. Mr. Balevich reported that the request was consistent with the development trend of the area as there were existing duplexes around the property and in the immediate area. However, the existing duplex was older and in poor condition; therefore, new construction of the same structure would improve the appearance of the neighborhood, and would not adversely impact anyone. Mr. Balevich advised that approval of this request would allow the applicant to re-build a new duplex with the same configuration and/or footprint which would be no more imposing, but would be more aesthetically pleasing and structurally built to existing codes. Staff received one (1) commentary in favor of the application and none in opposition. Mr. Balevich pointed out that approval of the request did not go against the public's best interests. Mr. Balevich advised if the BZA approved the request, the conditions as listed in the staff report should be imposed. Donald Corthell, 1818 Valley Creek Court, Orlando, Florida 32825, applicant, addressed the Board and asked to keep the square footage the same, but not follow the exact footprint of the existing structure. Mr. Corthell stated that this would allow for a more aesthetically pleasing design and allow both doors to face Westmoreland Drive. Further, Mr. Corthell agreed with staffs recommendation. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request. The BZA determined that the driveways and parking would be addressed at permitting, and discussed changing the wording of condition #1, to follow the site plan to the greatest extent possible, and to add a condition #3, stating that the minimum floor area of the entire duplex shall be 1,400 square feet. Therefore, the BZA approved the variance with the amended condition #1, and the added condition #3. A motion was made by Eugene Roberson Jr, seconded by Carolyn Karraker and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Variance requests in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan dated "Received November 19, 2014" to the greatest extent possible, and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS1MENT MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

17 obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; and, 3. The minimum floor area of the entire duplex shall be 1400 sq. ft. LENNAR HOMES LLC- VA REQUEST: ADDRESS: LOCATION: S-T-R: TRACT SIZE: DISTRICT#: 4 Variances in P-D zoning district to construct townhome on each lot as follows: 1) Lot 107: Allow a setback of 14.5 ft. from rear property line in lieu of 20 ft.; and, 2) Lot 108: Allow a setback of 17 ft. from rear property line in lieu of 20ft Bargate St.; 3019 Bargate St. East side of Bargate Street, south of Wyndham Lakes Blvd Lot ft. x 95ft. Lot ft. x 95ft. LEGAL: WYNDHAM LAKES ESTATES UNIT 7 A REPLAT 80/131 LOT 108 BLK 19 PARCEL ID: ; Development Coordinator David Nearing explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Nearing presented an overview of the case and outlined that the Wyndham Lake Estates was a Planned Development. The subject property was approved for development of townhouses. A past survey error resulted in all improvements, such as roads, drainage, stormwater management ponds, etc., being located five (5) feet off of their original approvals; and as a result, was five (5) feet too close of an established conservation area. applicant. Mr. Nearing noted that the surveyor had not been hired by the Mr. Nearing reported that the townhouse design was in accordance with that approved for the PD. However, the subject townhomes backed up to a conservation area. Because of the design of the townhouses, the subject units could not be offset; wherein, the only way to comply with the rear setback would be a variance to the front setback. The result of the requested variance would be a reduction of approximately 7.5 square feet of yard from Lot #1 07, and approximately forty-six (46) square feet from Lot #1 08. The conservation area was established and dedicated parcel, and additionally, surrounded by a three (3) foot tall faux wrought iron fence which could not be altered or moved. Thus, the requested variances would ensure that the conservation area remains protected as in order to construct the group of four (4) townhomes with a full rear yard, the entire building would need to be shifted forward five (5) feet since the units backed up to a dedicated conservation area. Staff received one (1) commentary in favor and none in opposition to the request. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS1MENT MEETING OF JANUARY 09, Mr.

18 Nearing stated that the applicant was requesting the minimum variance possible; and added granting of the variance would not diminish the integrity of the Zoning Code or the Orange County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Nearing further stated that should the BZA find that the requested variances were warranted, staff recommended the conditions to be imposed as outlined in the staff report. James Askey, 25 E. 13th Street, Suite 9, St. Cloud, Florida 34769, agent on behalf of the applicants, addressed the Board and explained that the survey error was the result of a historical survey monument which had been placed in error long ago, and had been the cause of numerous problems to include a deficient setback to two (2) of the units. Further, Mr. Askey agreed with staffs recommendation. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request. The BZA discussed the case and found that the cause of the variance was beyond the control of the applicant. Therefore, the BZA concurred with staffs recommendation. A motion was made by Gabriela Ortigoni, seconded by Gregory A. Jackson and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Variance requests in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan dated November 9, 2014, and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; and, obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development. IGLESIA DEDIOS PENTECOSTAL- SE REQUEST: Special Exception in R-2 and C-1 zoning districts to establish a school grades K-5 within religious sanctuary building (Note: Applicant proposes up to 50 students within existing building. No new construction is proposed). ADDRESS: 1131 N Goldenrod Rd. LOCATION: East side of N. Goldenrod Rd., south of E. Colonial Dr. S-T -R: TRACT SIZE: 3.7 acres DISTRICT#: 3 LEGAL: S 170FT OF W 422FT OF N 686FT OF NW1/4 OF SE1/4 & N 86FT OF S1/2 OF NW1/4 OF SE1/4 (LESS N 26 FT OF W 422 FT) & (LESS PT MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

19 TAKEN FOR RIW PER 4552/3773) IN SEC PARCEL 10: Chief Planner Rocco Relvini explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Relvini gave a brief presentation and indicated the applicant was proposing a small school grades K through 5 within the existing main sanctuary building in which half of the church was zoned C-1 and the other half was zoned R-2. Mr. Relvini noted that the on-site parking of up to forty (40) vehicles. for the religious services was adequate for the proposed school and no construction to be proposed. The school would be located inside the church building with a setback of approximately 150 feet from the homes to the north. Staff received one (1) commentary in favor and one commentary in opposition to the request. Mr. Relvini stated staff h~d no objections to this request since it appeared to have no adverse impact on anyone and small schools were typical on religious use sites. Further, the proposed school was located on Goldenrod Road which was a principal arterial roadway. Mr. Relvini further stated staff's recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions as set forth in the staff report. Ephrain Padilla, 1131 North Goldenrod Road, Orlando, Florida 32807, agent on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Board and advised that this would be a small school with little impact to any homes. Mr. Padilla further stated he agreed with staff's recommendation. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request. The BZA discussed the need for additional conditions to include the number of proposed outdoor events per year; no outdoor amplification of sound and/or music; and time constraints thereof. The applicant advised that he had no objections to any such restrictions. Therefore, the BZA concurred with staff's recommendation to include the additional conditions. A motion was made by Gabriela Ortigoni, seconded by Gregory A. Jackson and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Special Exception request in that the Board finds it met the requirements governing Special Exceptions as spelled out in Orange County Code, Section 38-78, and that the granting of the Special Exception does not adversely affect general public interest; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan dated "Received November 19, 2014," and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; and, obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

20 the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development. 3. The school shall be limited to fifty (50) students; 4. Land use permits shall be obtained prior to the operation of the school; 5. All outdoor activities shall end no later than 8:00p.m.; 6. No outdoor amplification of sound or music; and, 7. No more than four (4) outdoor special events per year. Recessed at 12:34 p.m. and reconvened at 1:16 p.m. TODD HUDSON- SE REQUEST: ADDRESS: LOCATION: S-T-R: TRACT SIZE: 137ft. x 190ft. DISTRICT#: 3 Special Exception in the R-2 zoning district to construct a 3 story triplex on each parcel (2 triplexes total) in excess of one story in height within 100 ft. of single family residences to the west and south. (Note: Each triplex will be 30ft. in height and will be setback approximately 59 ft. from west property line. The southernmost triplex will be setback approximately 25ft. from south property line) Francis Ave., Francis Ave. Southwest comer of Francis Ave. and Vine St., west of Bumby Ave LEGAL: CONWAY PARK N/41 LOTS 1 THROUGH 4 PARCEL ID: and Chief Planner Rocco Relvini explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Relvini gave a brief presentation and indicated the applicant was proposing to demolish an unsightly vacant structure on one (1) of the northernmost lots and construct a triplex on the same lot, plus another triplex on the adjacent lot. In addition, the applicant was proposing two (2) triplexes containing a total of six (6) dwelling units. Each triplex structure would be three (3) stories and thirty (30) feet in height. The code required any structure over one (1) story to be setback a minimum of 100 feet from single family uses. There were single family uses to the west. The applicant was proposing a setback of approximately fifty-nine (59) feet from the west property line in lieu of 100 feet. Mr. Relvini reported that the request represented a density of ten (1 0) dwelling units per acre. This was consistent with the property's Low-Medium Residential density of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. An inspection of the general area revealed that most of the homes were older, some of which were in decay; and others were two (2) stories in height. Further, the area had a mix of older single family residences and duplexes; in addition, some of the residences were up to thirty (30) feet in height. Based on the foregoing reasons, Mr. Relvini held that staff's position was the request was reasonable and would improve property values. Further, it was consistent with the Future Land Use Map; additionally, the applicant owned the property immediately to the south. Staff received four (4) commentaries in favor and four (4) commentaries in opposition to the request. Mr. Relvini stated staff's recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions as set forth in the staff report. MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

21 Todd Hudson, 1300 Francis Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32806, applicant, addressed the Board and gave a brief summary of his request. Mr. Hudson advised that there were several thirty (30) foot high structures in the immediate area and stated he was seeking the largest setback possible to construct a triplex over one story along the west property line. Lastly, Mr. Hudson agreed with staff's recommendation. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request. The BZA discussed the case and determined a thirty-five (35) foot high single story home would only have a twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback and these triplexes are thirty (30) foot high which would have a fifty-eight (58) foot rear yard setback. Thus, the BZA concluded the request met the special exception criteria and approved the request with staff's recommendation. A motion was made by Tony Rey, seconded by Carolyn Karraker and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Special Exception request in that the Board finds it met the requirements governing Special Exceptions as spelled out in Orange County Code, Section 38-78, and that the granting of the Special Exception does not adversely affect general public interest; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan dated "Received November 24, 2014" and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; and, obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development. DALE R SPEARS- VA REQUEST: Variances in A-R zoning district to allow accessory uses as follows: 1) To construct new accessory bldg. (garage and workshop) with 3,291 sq. ft. in lieu of 2,000 sq. ft.; 2) To allow cumulative square footage of 3,291 in lieu of 2,000 sq. ft. (existing accessory bldg. is 777 sq. ft. ; proposed accessory bldg. is 2,514 sq. ft.); and, 3) To construct new accessory building (garage and workshop) ft. in height in lieu of 20 ft. ADDRESS: Koi Rd. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Rockinghorse Rd. and Koi Rd. S-T-R: TRACT SIZE: 2.7 acres MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

22 DISTRICT#: 5 LEGAL: ROCKINGHORSE RANCHES UNIT 2 7/103 LOT 2 PARCEL ID: Development Coordinator David Nearing explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Nearing presented an overview of the case and outlined that the proposed home would have a total of 5,121 square feet under roof, with a total of 3,602 square feet of living area. The applicant's proposed garage would exceed all required setbacks. Further, the height of the proposed garage would match that of the proposed residence which would ensure a scaled appearance. It was reported by Mr. Nearing that the applicant had retained a sixty (60) swath of existing trees along the sites frontage on Rockinghorse Road; and, owned the lot to the west. The owner of the property to the north across Koi Road had retained a significant treed buffer on their property. The proposed garage was in scale with the size of the subject property, and would not appear out of the place with the rural character of the surrounding area. Mr. Nearing advised that the subject property was in a residential zoning district which was created to blend with adjacent rural/agricultural lands. The property and the new home were large, and a larger than normal accessory structure would be in balance with the area. Mr. Nearing noted that a variance had been granted in the general area for the height of a nearby residence, and another to permit a larger than normal accessory structure. In addition, the applicant was requesting the minimum amount of variance considered necessary. A variance of 514 square feet represented an increase of twenty percent (20%) over the minimum, which was within the range of previous variances granted by the BZA. Furthermore, the granting of the proposed variances would not diminish the integrity of the Zoning Code or the Orange County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Staff received a signed petition from twelve (12) neighbors in support of the request. Mr. Nearing stated should the BZA find that the requested variances were warranted, staff recommended the conditions in the staff report to be imposed. Dale Spears, Koi Road, Orlando, Florida 32817, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that they were in agreement with the conditions of approval. The BZA discussed the case and determined that the requested variance was for over fifty (50%) of the additional floor area, which exceeded what the BZA normally recommended. The BZA asked if the applicant would be willing to reduce the size of the new structure, or eliminate the existing pole barn to bring the total accessory floor area down to 2,540 square feet. The applicant indicated that he would prefer the entire variance, but would do so if that were the BZA's decision. The BZA noted that if the subject property had been closer to the next threshold of five (5) acres, where a larger floor area was acceptable, the Board may consider the request, but that is not the case. Finally, the BZA decided to add Condition #5, regarding cumulative square footage which resulted in denial of variance #1; amending variance #2, to limit the total accessory floor area to 2,540 square feet; and approval of variance #3. MEETING OF JANUARY 09,

23 A motion was made by Zachary Seybold, seconded by Gregory A. Jackson and unanimously carried to DENY the Variance request #1, in that there was no unnecessary hardship shown on the land; and further, it did not meet the requirements governing variances as spelled out in Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3); and to APPROVE the Variance requests #2 and #3, in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan dated November 28, 2014, and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; 3. The colors, architecture and exterior materials of the garage shall be compatable or complimentary to that of the principal structure; 4. Approval of this request does not constitute approval of the use of septic tanks and wells. The use of septic tanks and wells shall be in accordance with all applicable regulations; and, 5. Total accessory use square footage shall not exceed 2540 sq. ft. ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:05p.m. ATTEST: Za~ Chairman BOARD OF ZONING ADruSTMENT MEETING OF JANUARY 09,