ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2627: Request for a Non-Administrative Variance to allow a proposed swimming pool and screen enclosure with a reduced side property line setback for the property located at 210 N. Riverside Drive.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Findlay Dinger - Applicant / Owner
PROPOSED USE:
“Swimming Pool w/ Screen”
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Per Article V, Section 21-36.09 of the City of Edgewater Land Development Code, accessory structures (including swimming pools and screen enclosures) must meet required property line setbacks (10-foot setback required). The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a side property line setback of 5 feet 4 inches (5.33 feet) in lieu of the required 10 feet along the northern side property line.
PARCEL ID:
7452-01-00-0049
AREA:
0.62± acres (27,000± sq. ft.)
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-1, Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District One - Council Person: Charlotte Hope Gillis
Discussion:
Under Article V of the Land Development Code, accessory structures such as swimming pools and screen enclosures in residentially zoned districts are required to maintain a minimum 10-foot setback from property lines.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 12’ x 34’ swimming pool with a surrounding patio/deck and screen enclosure (totaling 982 sq. ft. of proposed pool footprint/decking). On the northern side of the home, the proposed pool enclosure structure extends to within 5 feet 4 inches of the side property line, requiring a 4-foot 8-inch variance from the required 10-foot side setback. Compliance with the 10-foot setback will be maintained on all other sides as indicated on the site plan. The existing lot coverage is 8,282 sq. ft. (30.68%), and with the proposed 982 sq. ft. addition, total lot coverage will equal 9,264 sq. ft. (34.31%), which complies with allowable lot coverage limits.
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: “w/o Variance Pool Could only be 7' wide”
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 1.2.9: Stormwater Management. The City shall continue to enforce the stormwater management requirements in the Land Development Code, which provide specific standards for the design of on-site stormwater systems, as well as strategies and measures to minimize runoff into the Indian River Lagoon. [9J-5.006 (3)(c)4., F.A.C.]
ii. 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. Residential pool in residential zone where pools are permitted.”
b. Staff’s response: While a residential swimming pool is a permitted accessory use within the R-2 zoning district, placing the structure within 5.33 feet of the side property line reduces spatial separation and buffering between adjoining residential parcels.
This criterion has not been met.
3. Is the proposed action the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property?
a. Applicant’s response: “Yes. The reduction in Setbacks will allow a small 12 Foot pool”
b. Staff’s response: No. The property is currently utilized as a single-family residence and retains reasonable use without a swimming pool. Alternatively, a smaller pool design or alternative placement/layout elsewhere on the 0.62-acre parcel could comply with the standard 10-foot setback requirements.
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: “This house was purchased by homeowner. Other houses in neighborhood [have similar pools].”
b. Staff’s response: The property consists of an exceptionally large residential lot (27,000 sq. ft. / 0.62 acres). There are no unique physical, topographical, or narrow lot constraints that prevent installing a pool in full compliance with city setbacks.
This criterion has 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: “Applicant bought the house as it exists on current property”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. The need for variance relief arises from the applicant's proposed pool dimension (12 feet wide) and chosen placement adjacent to the existing dwelling, rather than physical land constraints.
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. The adjoining property residence is 30+ feet from property line - reduction in setback [has] no negative effect. Visual appeal - because of the distance between the houses no negative effect. Ample room to install fence for safety barrier and privacy. The space allows for proper maintenance of pool and repairing equipment without encroaching on adjacent property. Compliance with 10 foot setback will be maintained on all but one side as shown in drawings.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. Waiving established setback requirements without a physical or land-based hardship impairs the intent of Chapter 21 to maintain uniform building separation, spatial buffers, and fire safety clearances between single-family structures.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Comments:
Fire Comment: No concerns or comments.
Public Notice:
In strict accordance with Florida Statutes Chapter 166.041 and local municipal ordinances, a physical Public Notice sign was prominently posted on the front of the site facing east on Riverside Drive on October 28th, 2026. In addition, official written Public Notices were compiled and mailed via USPS to all property owners of record located within a 500-foot buffer radius of the project boundary lines.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2627 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.