ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2612: Request for a variance to allow a metal carport to have a 3-foot 3-inch side yard setback in lieu of the 10-foot requirement for the property located at 122 Hotel Avenue, Edgewater, Florida.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Brian Stevens, Applicant
PROPOSED USE:
To allow a 3-foot 3-inch side yard setback for the placement of a metal carport.
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Per Article V, Table V-1, to allow a 3-foot 3-inches side yard setback in lieu of the 10-foot requirement.
PARCEL ID:
7433-12-00-0140
AREA:
0.29 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-3, Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District One - Council Person: Charlotte Hope Gillis
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting a variance allow a carport be built within 3-feet 3-inches of the property line. Further, this parcel has a non-conforming structure located 5-feet 7-inches from the property line in the rear of the parcel. This would allow per Article VII an approved side yard setback of 5-feet 7-inches; however, they are requested 3-foot 3-inches, which requires Planning and Zoning Board approval. Staff Review:
According to Article IX, Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance, City of Edgewater’s Land Development Code;
In order to grant a Non-Administrative Variance, the Planning and Zoning Board shall make the following findings of fact:
1. That granting of the proposed variance is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan;
2. That granting of the proposed variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area;
3. That granting of the proposed variance is the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property;
4. That the physical characteristics of the subject site are unique and not present on adjacent sites; and
5. That the circumstances creating the need for the variance are not the result of actions by the applicant, actions proposed by the applicant or actions by the previous property owner(s).
6. That granting of the proposed variance(s) will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code.
Explanation of hardship by applicant: “To have a covered area to park car under.”
1. Will granting the proposed variance result in a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan?
a. Staff’s response: After review, Staff has determined that granting the variance would result in a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
i. Future Land Use Policy 1.5.7: Maintaining Site Design Requirements and Subdivision Regulations. The City shall maintain site design requirements and subdivision regulations in the Land Development Code, which adequately address the impacts of new development on adjacent properties in all land use categories and zoning districts. [9J-5.006 (3)(c)1. and (3)(c)2., F.A.C.].
This criterion has not been met.
2. Will the granting of the proposed variance result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area?
a. Applicant’s Response: “No.”
b. Staff’s response: No, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses.
i. The following neighboring properties have structures less than ten feet from the property line:
1. 126 Hotel Avenue
2. 128 Hotel Avenue
3. 135 Hotel Avenue
This criterion has been met.
3. Is the proposed action the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property?
a. Applicant’s response: “No.”
b. Staff’s response: No, the individual could decrease the proposed structure.
This criterion has not been met.
4. Are the physical characteristics of the subject site unique and not present on adjacent sites?
a. Applicant’s response: “No.”
b. Staff’s response: No. The lot appears consistent in size and configuration with surrounding residential parcels and the land development code.
This criterion has not been met.
5. Are the circumstances creating the need for the variance the result of actions by the applicant or actions proposed by the applicant?
a. Applicant’s response: “Yes, need to see if the side yard setback can be reduced to 3-feet 3-inches.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. The requested of the side yard setback is the request of the applicant rather than a physical constraint of the property.
This criterion has not been met.
6. Will the granting of the proposed variance cause substantial detriment to public welfare or impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code?
a. Applicant’s response: “No.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. While granting the proposed variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare, it would impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code, specifically Article V, which establishes dimensional standards to implement the City’s Comprehensive Plan and ensure compatibility of development patterns.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Comments:
Fire Comment: No concerns or comments.
Public Notice:
In accordance with Florida Statues Chapter 166.041, a Public Notice sign was posted on the site on, May 27, 2026. In addition, Public Notices were mailed to all addresses within 500’ of the proposed project.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2612 because the applicant could not meet all six criteria of Article IX, Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance, City of Edgewater’s Land Development Code.