File #: VA-2602    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Planning Item Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 2/4/2026 In control: Planning and Zoning Board
On agenda: 2/11/2026 Final action:
Title: VA-2602: Request for a variance to allow construction of an inground pool and spa within the front yard for the property at 422 N. Riverside Drive.
Attachments: 1. Public Notice Aerial Map, 2. Public Notice Signage, 3. Survey, 4. Pool Plan Set
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
No records to display.

ITEM DESCRIPTION:

Title

VA-2602: Request for a variance to allow construction of an inground pool and spa within the front yard for the property at 422 N. Riverside Drive.

Body

OWNER/APPLICANT: 

Molly Willmott and Richard Molesworth, Owners.

 

PROPOSED USE: 

                     To add an inground custom pool and spa to the current residence.

 

REQUESTED ACTION:

Per Article III, Section 21-36.09(d), Front yard and side corner yard swimming pools are prohibited. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow construction of an inground custom pol and spa in the front yard facing the river.

 

PARCEL ID:

7450-02-01-0150

 

AREA:                     

0.3 acres

 

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:

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow construction of an in ground pool and spa within the front yard. According to Article III of the Land Development Code, swimming pools and spas are not permitted within front yards or side corner yards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aerial Public Notice Map:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site Plan:

                     

 

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 P. & Z. 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: “No other possible building space. Yard topography prohibits.”

 

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.].

ii.                     Future Land Use Policy 1.14.4: Maintaining the City’s Historical Built Environment. Through the land development and permitting processes, the City shall cooperate with the private sector to recognize and maintain the integrity of the City’s historical built environment. [9J-5.006 (3)(c)8., 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. Adjoining properties have pool placed facing river.”

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 neighborhood properties currently have a front yard inground pool and or spa within the City limits of Edgewater.

1.                     428 N. Riverside Drive

2.                     346 N. Riverside Drive

3.                     513 N. Riverside Drive

 

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. Pool is tucked away in court yard.”

b.                     Staff’s response: No. The subject property can be reasonably used for residential purposes in compliance with the Land Development Code without construction of a pool and spa within the required front yard. 

 

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. Court yard home.”

b.                     Staff’s response: The subject property is a conforming lot meeting the minimum lot size, width, and depth.

 

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: “No. Only possible location for pool.”

b.                     Staff’s response: Yes, the need for the variance is self-created and results from the applicant’s proposed placement of a pool and spa within the required front yard. 

 

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, pool is located in a will planned location tucked away in court yard.”

b.                     Staff’s response: Yes. While granting the proposed variance would not result in a substantial detriment to the public welfare, it would impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code. Article III establishes front yard standards for swimming pools and spas in order to maintain consistent site design and development patterns. Approval of the requested variance would undermine these adopted standards by allowing placement of a pool and spa within the required front yard.

 

This criterion has not been met.

 

Staff Comments:

                     Fire Comment: No comments or concerns.

Public Notice:

In accordance with Florida Statues Chapter 166.041, a Public Notice sign was posted on the site on, January 28, 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-2602 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.