Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Joseph Driggers - Applicant / Owner
PROPOSED USE:
“Concrete driveway for perking, access, storage, etc.”
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Per Article V, Section 21-52-02 (e) to allow a driveway 1.5 ft from the property line of an unimproved road in lieu of the required 5-feet, based on the requirement in Article V requiring the structure to meet a 5-foot setback from the property line.
PARCEL ID:
8402-01-04-4300
AREA:
0.23± acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-2, Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District Two - Council Person: Mike Thomas
Discussion:
Under Article V, Sections 21-52.02(e) no driveway shall be closer than five feet (5’) to any lot line or encroachment into any side or rear easement.
The applicant is seeking to add a 10’ X 70’ driveway on the parcel up 1.5 feet from the property line on the unimproved side of the lot. The applicant is proposing a 4” think drive with a 6” think apron. It is planning and zoning departments recommendation to have the board discuss a culver addition during the meeting.
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: “Requesting a variance from required 5 ft setback to allow driveway roughly 1.5 ft from property line. New proposed driveway will run parallel to the existing driveway (north of existing) and extend towards back of the house. My property currently has only a single-width (~12 ft) driveway. This limits vehicle access/ parking. Due to existing layout and property area. There is no other practical location for an additional driveway that would be sufficient while maintaining the required 5 ft setback. The proposed location would allow for reasonable use of the property by improving vehicle access and maneuverability, while the adjacent drainage easement provides additional separation from my neighboring property.”
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, proposed plan is consistent with existing residential uses of property and surrounding area.”
b. Staff’s response: Placing a 10 X 70 driveway along the unimproved side of the parcel introduces stormwater runoff and spatial incompatibility with surrounding properties.
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, proposed location is the most practical placement given existing layout. The requested variance is limited setback needed to provide vehicle access and maneuverability.”
b. Staff’s response: No. The property retains reasonable use by changing the driveway to the other side of the current 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: “My property has an adjacent drainage easement combined with current layout property, creates site specific limitations for adding additional driveway.”
b. Staff’s response: The property consists of a standard platted residential lot displaying physical characteristics similar to adjacent properties. No unique topographical or geological constraints prevent building in code compliance.
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: “The need for the variance is based on the existing layout and physical characteristics of the property, which limit the practical addition while maintaining required setbacks.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. The need for variance relief stems from applicant’s site design preferences to maximize parking area outside allowable building envelopes 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: “The proposed driveway is consistent with the residential use of the property and will not impact the neighboring property or public welfare. The easement also provides additional separation from my neighbor.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. Granting setback relief and waiving standards without land-based hardship impairs Chapter 21 intent to preserve buffers, fire separation, and visual character.
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 west on Willow Oak on September 30th, 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-2625 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.